ORDER
S.C. Mital, J.
1. The above named petitioners have filed this bail application Under Section 439, Cr.P.C. in Sessions Case No. 89/96 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur Camp Deedwana pertaining to F.I.R. No. 94 dated 14-9-1995, Police Station Khunkhuna Under Sections 302, 364, 365, 176 and 201 I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge Camp Deedwana has rejected the bail application of the petitioners vide order dated 28-9-1996. The petitioners moved first hail application No. 481/96 along with other co-accused persons, which was allowed to be withdrawn on the request with liberty to file a fresh bail application after the receipt of copies of the statements. The second bail application No. 1068/96 was rejected on 9-9-1996 along with Misc. Petition No. 26/96 Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. challenging the orders dated 25-3-1996 and 26-3-1996 taking cognizance by learned Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana. Now the petitioners have moved this third bail application.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Shri Sugan Singh son of Shri Bahadur Singh resident of village Badawara submitted a report on 14-9-1995 at Police Station, Khunkhuna that his son studying in 10th Class went to appear in supplementary examination from his village to Deedwana but he did not return. He made a search but could not find him and found his bag, books and shirt stained in blood on railway station, Chhotu Khatu. On inquiry Mahendra Singh son of Shri Mool Singh, Rewanl singh son of Dhan Singh Rjput resident of Koniyada and Chotu Khalu told him that Puranaram son of Chainaram, Prabhuram son of Shri Chainaram, Prakash son of Hadmanaram, Rajusingh son of Sumer Singh, Noratan son of Gunaram and Prakash son of Hadmanaram Naj resident of Badawara came in a jeep in the night at 10 p.m. on 28-8-1995 and kidnapped his son. Thus, all the above persons have committed murder of his son. A case Under Sections 365, 364 read with 147, I.P.C. was registered and after completing the investigation a charge sheet was submitted on 12-3-1996 against the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 Chuna Ram and Ram Niwas Under Sections 147, 364, 365, 302, 201 and 120B read with 149, I.P.C. and cognizance was taken against them vide order dated 25-3-1996. Against other petitioners No. 3 to 7 charge sheet was submitted on 26-3-1996 and cognizance was taken aginst them on the same day. Now after commitment of the case, the trail is in progress in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur Camp Deedwana.
3. I have heard the learned counsel on behalf of the petitionrs and the learned Additional Advocate General and also perused the record. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners in fact it is the first bail application because the earlier two bail applications were not argued and decided on merits. The first bail application was withdrawn by the petitioners and the second bail application was submitted on legal ground challenging the cognizance taken on incomplete chargesheet without accompanying the documents Under Section 173(5), Cr.P.C. Though first two bail applications have been rejected, but the matter was not considered in those bail applications on the basis of the documents on merits. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioners may not be required to show that there, is any change in the facts and circumstances of the case after the rejection of previous two bail applications. Whereas learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioners withdrew the first bail application because they knew hat their bail application could not be accepted on merits. All the documents were available at that time and, therefore, no new document or any circumstance has now come in favour of the petitioner. It is, therefore, contended that this bail application deserves to be dismissed only on this ground alone that after rejection of previous two bail applications there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. As already stated above, the petitioners withdrew first bail application with permission to file fresh bail application on the receipt of the copies of the statements and the second bail application was rejected unholding the order of taking cognizance and treating the charge sheet complete and the plea on behalf of the petitioners to grant them bail Under Section 167(2), Cr.P.C. was rejected. Therefore, the contention to reject the bail application on the ground that previous two bail applications rejected, is not acceptable in the above circumstances.
5. It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that occurrence is stated to have taken place on 28-8-1995, but the F.I.R. was lodged by Sugan Singh on 14-9-1995 after delay on 17 days. The F.I.R. is against five persons Puran Ram- son of Chaina Ram, Prabhu Ram son of Chaina Ram, Prakash son of Hadmana Ram, Raju Singh son of Sumer Singh and Nauran son of Guna Ram.
No allegation has been made in the F.I.R against Chuna Ram, Ram Niwas, Sarvan, Kana Ram and Nimbuda. No overt act has been stated or serious allegation made against the above petitioners in the F.I.R. the date of occurrence has been changed from 28-8-1995, as given in the F.I.R., to 26-8-1995 and also the place of recurrence. The police recorded the statements of the witnesses in which nothing has been diclosed against the petitioners. But later on subsequent statement of the same witnesses have been recorded by Kan Singh e.o. wherein allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. The original statements were not supplid by the prosecution and the petitioners had to move a petition Under Section 482, Cr.P.C. to get those statements, which were suplied after two months on the order of this Court. Thus, the investigating agency has not been fair in investigation and wanted to keep the petitioners inside jail as long as they could do so by not supplying the copies of the statements so that the petitioners may not know the material against them. The police trried to raise its case on the statement of approver Ram Chandra. But he gave the statement under duress and pressure of the police and he has not supported the prosecution version in his statement before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur Camp Deedwana recorded on 28-11-1996. The other witnesses Sanu Khan railway employees (P.W. 4) has also not supported the prosecution version and turned hostile.
6. The learned counsel further argued that according to F.I.R. Mohan Singh and Rewant Singh saw the persons named in the F.I.R. kidnapping Tej Singh in a Jeep then they would have definitely gone to the father of Tej Singh i.e. Sugan Singh to inform him. Tej Singh met the witness Dhan Raj on 27-7-1995 and therefore the prosecution version of the incident taking place-on 26-7-1995 is false. It is vehemently argued that the dead body alleged to have been recovered on the information and at the instance of accused petitioner Chuna Ram is a skeleton and it was not in the condition to be identified that of deceased Tej Singh. Moreover, the police already knw before this r ecovery about the well from the statements of Jagia alias Jagdish and Sarwan Ram Harijan Under Section 161, Cr.P.C. recorded on 3-12-1995 to whom Chuna Ram is alleged to have told about the offence committed by them and the dead body thrown by them in the well. Thus the alleged recovery of the dead body also does not link the petitioners with the alleged offence. It is argued that Shri Tej Singh also met nand Singh who is his cousin on 27-7-1995. According to his statement Under Section 161, Cr.P.C. dated 20-10-1995, but I perused the referred page No. 44 and I did not find any such version in his statement. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upn 1988 Cr. LR (Raj) 631 (latia @ Harira @ Natwar v. The State of Rajasthan) in which there was conflict about date of occurrence and the report of the incident was not made immediately. Hence in the facts and circumstacnes of that case, it was deemed proper to enlarge the accused petitioners on bail. Reliance was also placed on 1986 Cr LR (Raj) 662 (Satya Narayan v. State), wherein the accused was granted bail on the ground that four witnesses gave contrary statements against accused recorded Under Section 174 and 161, Cr.P.C. 1995 Cr LR (Raj) 316 (Surendra v. State of Rajasthan) has also been referred on behalf of the petitioners. Thus, it is argued that there is no evidence to connect the accused petitioners with the alleged offences and no overt act has been assigned to them. Further in view of the above facts and circumstances, it is contended that the accused petitioners should be released on bail.
7. The learned Additional Advocate General has vehemently opposed the bail application on the ground that there are very serious allegations against the petioners about kidnapping, cruel and cold blooded murder of innocent boy Tej Singh. His dead body was thrown in the well The court should not go into niceties of the evidence and the appreciation of the evidence of the statement Under Section 161, Cr.P.C. at this stage. The learned Additional Advocate General also submitted that the case was not properly investigated by the then S.H.O., Khunkhuna and notices have been served for action against him and the Circle Officer for supervisory negligence. The investigation was entrusted to C.O., Makrana. he conducted the investigation and recorded the statements of the witnesses in which correct version of the incident has been given by the witnesses. It is, therefore, argued that in the facts and circumstances of this case the statements recorded by C.O. Makrana assume great importance and cannot be discarded lightly. Bhanwar Singh Rajput was severely beaten on 22-8-1995 by Prakash, Raju Singh and Naurta, Sarwan Ram Nai and Raanjeet. Harijan took injured Bhanwar Singh to Deedwana Hospital and remained there with him for two days. The petitioners became furious that how Sarwan Ram Nai could have courage to help Bhanwar Singh and they wanted to kill him and all of them armed with weapons check the Bus on 26-8-1995, but Sarwan Ram Nai was not travelling in that bus. This fact has been deposed by Pema Ram and Bhanwaroo Khan the conductor and the driver of the Bus. Thereafter they went to Khatu Station, but Sarwan Ram did not reach Khatu by that train also. But Tej Singh came from Deedwana on to go to his village and he was kidnapped by the petitioners and other co-accused persons and brutally murdered. Bhanwar Singh and father of Tej Singh Shri Sugan Singh are relatives and at any cost the petitioners wanted to know whereabout of Sarwan Nai and made this innocent boy their target.
8. It is further argued that the petitioners tried to terrorise with the dire consequences the railway employees present at the Raillway Station at the time of the occurrence not to disclose about the incident. There are statements of Ugam Raj, Bhandari, Madan Lal and Shamu Khan, One of the railway employees Ram Narain committed suicide out of fear of the petitioners. Prahalad Singh and Bhaguram Slave also given the version of the incident happened on 26-8-1995. Chuna Ram admitted commision of th offence to Sarwan Ram and Jagdish @ Jagia. Before reaching Khatu Police Station, Prabhu Ram along with other co-accused persons was driving the bus rach and negligently for which Shiyam Sunder, Venu Gopal, Padam Chand objected to them and thereupon Prabhu Ram and Prakash ran after them with a sword to kill them. They reported this matter to Thakur Kalyan Singh.
9. There is statement of Dhan Raj, who was also appearing at the supplementary examination with Tej Singh and he has also stated that Tej Singh left Deedwana on 26-8-1996 and then he did not return. Ram Chandra approver has given the details of the incident in his statement Under Section 164, Cr.P.C. on 9-1-1996 recorded by Chief Judicial Magistrat Nagaur. Lateron he has turned hostile.
10. It is conteded that the petitioners are not at all entitled to be enlarged on bail simply on ground of delay in F.I.R. or some wrong investigation conducted at the inital stage by S.H.O. Khunkhuna. The delay has been completely explained in his statement by Shri Sugan Singh the father of the deceased that he was continuously busy in the search of his son and visited the houses of several relatives. The date of occurrence 28-8-1995 was also stated by him in the F.I.R. because supplementary examination was to be over on this date. This has also been clearly explained in his statement recorded by C.O., Makrana and also in the Statements of Mohan Singh and Rewant Singh, They have also stated that Tej Singh left Deedwana on 26-8-1995 and did not come back to appear next paper on 28-8-995. The supplementary examination attendance sheet and other record has also been collectd to prove this fact. In the statements of all other witnesses also the date of ocurrence is fully established i.e. 26-8-1995. Therefore, it is argued that the petitioners cannot draw any benefit out of statement taken by S.H.C., Khunkhuna menioning wrong facts. The place of occurrence has also not been changed. The site memo has been prepared and it has been shown that the jeep was outside the Railway Station by which the petitioners forcibly took away deceased Tej Singh. The participation of all the petitioners have been revealed on the basis of the complete investigation by C.O. Makrana and it is immaterial if some names have not been given in the F.I.R. because Sugan Singh is not an eye-witness and be reported the matter on the basis of the information given by Mohan Singh and Rewant Singh. The dead body was takenout from the well in pursuance of the information furnished by Chuna Ram and at his instance and it was identified by the brother of the deceased Shiv Pal singh and also the Pant, Baniyan and Chhadhi were found on the dead body, which Tej Singh was wearing at the time of the alleged incident. Jagia and Sarwan Ram Harijan states about the occurrence statd to them by Chuna Ram, but in their statements it appeals that the well in which the dead body was thrown did not exactly came to the knowledge of the police. The post-mortem report has also opined the cause of the death, fractures of various bones and skull bone on 15 pieces. In the end the learned Additional Advocate General strenuously argued that here is complete direct and chain of circumstantial evidence to connect the petitioners with charges framed against them and if they are enlarged on bail, they will the evidence and there is every probability and possibility of the witnesses becoming hostile due to fear and pressure of the petitioners.
11. I have seriously considered the rival submissions. I have also perused the judgments relied upon by the parties. At this stage I agree with the learned Additional Advocate General that his Court is not rquired to embark upon meticulous examination of the papers Under Section 173, Cr.P.C. or to appreciat the statements recorded by the trial Court. There are number of witneses about the direct and circumstantial evidence yet to be examined in this case. I have perused the statement of Sugan Singh, Mohan Singh, Rewant Singh, Dhan Ram, Prahalad Singh, Bhaguram Bhanwaroo Khan, Sarwan Nai and Ranjeet Harijan. I have also considered and perused the other relevant documents submitted in the challan Under Section 173, Cr.P.C. without expressing any opinion on the merits and upon considering the arguments on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General, I am of the view that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners ar not found entitled to be enlarged on bail Under Section 439, Cr.P.C.
12. Consequently, the bail application is hereby rejected.