IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Cr. Misc.2nd Bail Application No.8246/2010 Madholal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order : 27/8/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri S.K.Gupta for the petitioners. Shri N.R. Saran Public Prosecutor ****** This is second application for bail by the petitioners. First application for bail was rejected by this Court with liberty to again apply for bail before the Court of Sessions after the statement of the injured is recorded. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that statement of injured Shyopal could not be recorded because of his physical condition. The Court below while rejecting the bail application has given a note that despite the witness being produced in the Court, he was unable to utter a single word and that his right side of the body was completely paralyzed. Referring the statement of Ram Kalyan, learned counsel argued that since only one injury was sustained by Shyopal, therefore two persons cannot be held responsible for that injury, inasmuch as there is no corresponding injury. According to him, the said injury can be attributed to petitioner Madho Lal and, atleast not to accused petitioner Pappu. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that the trial court has rejected the bail application of the petitioner with specific note that due to the injuries sustained by Shyopal, his right side of the body has been completely paralyzed and that he is unable to give his statement. Other two witnesses examined during trial have also not turned hostile. Injured Ram Kalyan in his statement has stated that accused Pappu also inflicted injury on the head of injured Shyopal by reverse side of Kulhadi. Having considered the rival submissions, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Consequently, the bail application is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite trial of the case. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. Thanvi