IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. IInd Bail Application No. 6449/2009 Om Prakash v/s State of Rajasthan Date : 24.8.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. S.K. Gupta, for accused petitioner. Mr. G.S. Fauzdar, Public Prosecutor, for State. This order governs the disposal of second bail petition filed under section 439 of Cr.P.C. by Mr. S.K. Gupta Advocate on behalf of the applicant Om Prakash pertaining to FIR No.1/2008 of Police Station Budhadeet, District Kota in the offences under sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of IPC and Section 3 of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act and Section 302 of IPC added later on. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 the prosecution has examined in all 23 witnesses and now only 2 or 3 prosecution witnesses are left to be examined. These witnesses have not deposed against the petitioner. PW-7 Dhanraj, PW-14 Shivraj, PW-19 Sumitra and PW-20 Gajendra have not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. PW-19 Sumitra is the wife of the deceased. Learned counsel took me through the statements of PW-19 Sumitra and PW-20 Gajendra and contended that Sumitra categorically deposed in her examination in chief that he had seen the accused persons only from their back. She did not see their faces. She did not know the names of the attackers also. PW-20 Gajendra, son of the deceased, categorically deposed in his cross- examination that the petitioner Om Prakash was not one of the co-accused persons who had murdered his father. The petitioner has been in custody since 16.03.2008. Three co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench. In the first bail order dated 20.6.2008 rendered by this court observed on page 4 with regard to the cause of death of the deceased which is as under: “The cause of death, in the opinion of the Doctor who performed the autopsy, has been recorded due to Comma as a result of head injury and its complications such as mal- nutrition, septicemia which was sufficient to cause death in the natural course of life.” 4. Learned counsel has contended that the injuries were not only the cause of the death of the deceased but mal-nutrition and septicemia developed later on also were the cause of his death. Apart this, the petitioner is not also alleged to have caused any injury on the head of the deceased. He is merely alleged to have caused injury on the thigh of the deceased, hence, in view of the statements of these material witnesses, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail petition. 6. Having considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the relevant material available on record including the statements of the witnesses recorded by the learned trial court, I, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, do feel inclined to grant bail to the petitioner and the bail petition is ordered to be allowed. 7. It is, therefore, ordered that the accused petitioner Om Prakash S/o. Prahlad Gurjar in FIR No.1/2008 of Police Station Budhadeet, District Kota, shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- together with two surety bonds each in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so till the trial is concluded. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Mak/- s-2