IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc.2nd Bail Application No.7670/2009 Mahesh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan Dated : 23.10.2009 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Anoop Dhand, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. Manish Kumawat], Mr. Amit Jindal ], for the complainant. This order governs the disposal of second bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. Anoop Dhand Advocate on behalf of the applicant Mahesh Kumar pertaining to F.I.R. No. 124/2009 of Police Station Ajitgarh, District Sikar in the offences under Sections 341, 323, 379, 452 and 307 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 has canvassed that he police after completion of investigation has filed the charge-sheet, which is pending trial. It is alleged that Durga Prasad sustained one grievous injury on occipital region but the same has been ascribed to two persons. Both the parties lodged the report against each other. The complainant party was the aggressors, hence, the petitioner may be granted indulgence of bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State as also learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application on the ground that the injured is 75 years old. The main accused Bunti has still been absconding and the charge-sheet has been filed against him under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. It has also been canvassed that the petitioner was bound down by the executive court under Section 151 of Cr.P.C. not to commit breach of peace, inspite that the petitioner armed with deadly weapon assaulted upon the injured who remained admitted in Hospital for so many days for treatment. The C.T. Scan report revealed fracture on his left temporal bone. On scanning contusion as also oedima was found. The injured became speechless and after a long treatment he has regained only 30% speech, hence, the bail petition may be dismissed. 5. Having reflected over the submissions made at the bar and scanned the relevant material available on record including the bail order dated 20.08.2009 rendered by this Court, I do not find any good ground to change my earlier view and the second bail petition filed on behalf of the petitioner also stands dismissed for those very reasons which were enumerated in the first bail order. (MAHESH BHAGWATI),J. Mak/- 80