1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc.2nd Bail Application No.5122/2010 Manoj Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 2nd November, 2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. Rajesh Goswami, for the petitioner. Mr. Anoop Dhand, for the complainant. Mr. G.S. Fauzdar, Public Prosecutor for the State. This order governs the disposal of second bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Rajesh Goswami Advocate on behalf of the applicant Manoj Kumar pertaining to F.I.R. No. 207/2008 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Fatehpur, District Sikar, for the offences under Section 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 427, 325 and 450 read with Section 120- B of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed the petitioner Manoj Kumar is an innocent person, who has been languishing in 2 jail since 30th December, 2008. The real culprits of the case have already been left out by the police during investigation. Learned counsel further contended that albeit, after completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed by the police against the petitioner and it was kept pending under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. against some of the accused persons and during that investigation, the police arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner was an innocent person and he was falsely implicated, hence, the Investigating Officer along with the case diary should be summoned. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant as also learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State have vehemently opposed the bail petition. 5. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and scanned the relevant material available on record including the bail order dated 10th May, 2010 rendered by the learned Additional Session Judge, No.2, Sikar, it is noticed that the accused Manoj Kumar had already been indicted for the alleged offences and the 3 trial is on. Learned Additional Session Judge, No.2, Sikar has observed in his bail order that not a single material witness of prosecution has yet been examined in this case, hence, at this stage, the petitioner should not be granted indulgence of bail. I also do not find any good ground to change my earlier view and the second bail petition also stands dismissed for those very reasons as enumerated in the first bail order dated 04.08.2009. 6. So far as summoning the Investigating Officer along with the case diary is concerned, I do not find any reason to summon him at this stage. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. Mak/- 6