1 40-41 S.B. CRIMINAL MISC.3rd BAIL APPLICATION NO. 5550/2009. Jeta Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan ... S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. 3rdBAIL APPLICATION NO.5551/2009. Vala Ram & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan Date of Order : 4th November 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Pradeep Shah, for the petitioners. Mr. M.A. Bhurat, Public Prosecutor. ... BY THE COURT: These two applications, being the third bail applications as moved by the accused-petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C., relate to the same FIR and hence, have been considered together and are taken up for disposal by this common order. The petitioners Jeta Ram (Bail Application No. 5550/2009), Vala Ram and Deva Ram (Bail Application No.5551/2009), are accused of offences under Sections 342, 323, 363, 366, 494 IPC in FIR No. 147/2009 where, of course, a negative Final Report bearing number 50/2009 was filed by the Investigting Agency but then, the Court concerned proceeded to take cognizance of the offences aforesaid against the petitioners and the co-accused persons. The matter involves the allegations of abduction for the purpose of marriage of a minor girl, said to be about 13 years in age. 2 The first bail application, as moved by the petitioners jointly (Bail Application No.3072/2009), was dismissed as not pressed by this Court on 06.07.2009. Thereafter, the second bail application separately moved by the petitioner Jeta Ram (Bail Application No. 4254/2009) was dismissed as withdrawn on 10.09.2009; and the second bail application as moved by the petitioners Vala Ram and Deva Ram (Bail Application No. 4373/2009) was also dismissed as withdrawn on 17.09.2009. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners in these third bail applications that an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. (Bail Application No.5567/2009) as moved by the co-accused Narpat Singh has been allowed by this Court on 26.10.2009 converting the order issuing non-bailable warrant against him to that of issuance of bailable warrant; and the order so passed by a co- ordinate Bench has been placed for perusal. Another circumstance has been pointed out that the said co-accused Narpat Singh has filed a criminal revision petition that remains pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhinmal and the record pertaining to the original case having been requisitioned therein, further proceedings have not taken place and are held up. It is sought to be argued that there are no allegations pertaining to any offence of physical assault or the deeds that might be referable to Section 376 IPC and, in the totality of the circumstances, the petitioners deserves to be enlarged on bail. 3 Upon consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, this Court is unable to find a material change in the circumstances since after rejection of the two earlier bail applications, may be as not pressed and withdrawn, so as to consider grant of the bail to the petitioners at this stage. The circumstance that the co-accused Narpat Singh would not be arrested per the force of the order passed by this Court on 26.10.2009 hardly enures to the benefit of the petitioners. It has been noticed from the copy of the order dated 26.10.2009 in relation to the said co-accused Narpat Singh, as placed for perusal by the learned counsel for the petitioners, that the submissions were made before the Court about negative report having been filed by the Investigating Agency and cognizance having been taken by the subordinate Court; and, it was submitted that the applicant would be ready to appear before the Court if liberty of bailable warrant was given, instead of procuring his attendance by way of non- bailable warrant.. The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, admitted the fact of filing of negative final report and taking of cognizance but then, also submitted that the case diary had not been received by him on the given date. The said order as passed by this Court in the interest of justice qua the said accused Narpat Singh on his plea for anticipatory bail, in the totality of the circumstances, hardly makes out a case for grant of bail to the present petitioners in these third bail applications. 4 So far the pendency of revision petition at the instance of the accused Narpat Singh is concerned, merely for such pendency and stalling of the proceedings thereby, no case is made out for grant of bail to the present petitioners particularly looking to the nature of accusation in the present case involving a minor girl. In case of any difficulty or delay in further proceedings in the trial, it is always open for the petitioners to make relevant submissions before the Court concerned but on that account, at this stage, this Court does not feel inclined to grant indulgence to the petitioners. These third bail applications moved on behalf of the petitioners Jeta Ram, Vala Ram and Deva Ram under Sectioin 439 Cr.P.C., therefore, stand rejected without any comment on the merits of the case. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan// 5 41 S.B. CR. MISC. 3rd BAIL APPLICATION NO.5551/2009. Vala Ram & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan Date of Order : 4th November 2009. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. Pradeep Shah, for the petitioners. Mr. M.A. Bhurat, Public Prosecutor. ... BY THE COURT: This bail application stands rejected. (Vide common order made in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail application No. 5550/2009 : Jeta Ram Vs. The State of Rajasthan). (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. //Mohan//