- (1.) THE present third bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 289/2012, Police Station Kotwali, district Nagaur for the offences under Sections 302, 364 and 201/120 -B IPC.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has raised various arguments including that there are three witnesses of last seen namely Nirmal Soni, Rugha Ram and Dharma Ram. Nirmal Soni was named in the FIR but he has turned hostile. Rugha Ram and Dharma Ram have been examined. They have specifically stated that they had duly informed the complainant that they had seen the deceased with the accused persons. However, the complainant did not name either Rugha Ram and Dharma Ram in the FIR as the witnesses who had last seen the deceased with the petitioner. Thus, they have been planted subsequently. The motive for the murder which has been assigned to the petitioner is that he was having an affair with the wife of the deceased. However, there is no evidence. The SIM which was recovered from the petitioner belonged to Kuldeep Singh. It is further stated that the recovery witnesses of the Bolero Jeep which was supposed to be driven by the petitioner, are the close relatives of the deceased and therefore, no reliance can be placed on their statements. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed on 26.07.2013. Thereafter, the second bail application was dismissed on 16.01.2014. The third bail application has been filed on the ground that besides the recovery witnesses Amra Ram and Hanumana Ram, Rugha Ram and Dharma Ram, the last seen witnesses have since been examined.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the complainant has pointed out that the Phone No. 9829726599 belongs to the present petitioner and the Phone No. 7891421118 belongs to the father of the co -accused Durga. However, the same was recovered from the girl i.e. Durga. PW -8 is a recovery witness of the said mobile from the girl. The same was being used by her. There are 275 telephone calls between the petitioner and the co -accused Durga from 01.05.2012 to 28.05.2012 and 26 calls on 28/29.05.2012 and one call between them after the incident. In view of the above as well as taking into account the statement of Dharma Ram and Rugha Ram, who have stood by their statement of last seen, this Court does not deem it proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail at the stage when almost 19 out of total 37 witnesses have been examined. Moreover, this Court vide order dated 03.02.2014 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 1034/2014 ­ Durga Devi vs. State of Rajasthan has already directed to expedite the trial. No ground is made out to release the petitioner on bail at this stage.;