IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. IIIrd Bail Appl. No. 1367/2010 Kailash Chand Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 11.02.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Rinesh Gupa, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Punia, P.P. for the State. *** This order governs the disposal of third bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Shri Rinesh Gupta, Advocate on behalf of the applicant Kailash Chand Soni pertaining to F.I.R. No.95/2008 of police station Mandawar District Jhalwawar, in the offences under Section 302/34 in alternative under Sections 306/34 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as also the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner canvassed that the petitioner was arrested in this case on 15th December, 2008. After completion of investigation, the charge- sheet was filed by the police and thereafter only three prosecution witnesses have been examined. The police has appended along with the charge-sheet a long list of 47 prosecution witnesses, which suggests that the trial of the case shall take time to complete. So far as the evidence emerging on record against the petitioner is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner took me -2- through the cross examination of PW/3 Krishna Gopal @ Kishan Gopal who happens to be the father of the deceased and contended that the bone of contention of this incident, in fact, was that the deceased Sarita intended to marry the co-accused Jeetu. Since this marry was being opposed by Satya Prakash and her brother, Sarita committed suicide. It is not a case of murder. There is not even a shred of evidence against the petitioner Kailash Chand Soni, hence, he may be granted indulgence of bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the bail petition. 5. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and perused the relevant material available on record, it is suffice to observe that the first bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground that one sim of Vodaphone No.9772177417 was recovered at the instance of co-accused Jitendra, from the possession of the accused petitioner. Apart that, one Nokia Telephone which was being used by the deceased, was also recovered at the instance of the petitioner. This court categorically observed in the first bail order dated 4th March, 2009 that the prosecution case solely rests on circumstantial evidence. Albeit, there is no direct evidence on record, which could connect the petitioner with the offence of murder of Sarita, but at this stage, the circumstantial evidence emerging on record cannot be ignored. This Court while deciding -3- the bail petition cannot appreciate the evidence of prosecution. Since the rejection of first bail on dated 4th March, 2009 and thereafter second bail on 25th March, 2009, there has been no change in the fact situation of the case. Three witnesses, who have been examined till date are not relevant for the purpose of deciding the bail petition, hence, I, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, do not feel inclined to grant indulgence of bail at this stage and his third bail petition also deserves to be dismissed. 6. In the result, the third bail petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner Kailash Chand Soni S/o Shri Prem Chand Soni stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg