JUDGMENT 1. - All these three petitions may be disposed of by a common order as they arise from Crime No. 28/95 registered at Police Station, Harmada, Jaipur. 2. The petitioner is an accused in the aforesaid case and he has been arrested by the police. He moved an application for his bail under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code which was registered as S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1102/95. The said application was dismissed on merits on March 27, 95 with a liberty to the petitioner to move fresh bail application after statement of the injured is recorded by the trial Court. The trial Court was further directed to record his statement as a first witness. Thereafter, the petitioner has moved the above three petitions. 3. In S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 343/95 which has been filed under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code the prayer of the petitioner is to recall the above order passed by this Court in the bail application. In S.B.Criminal Misc. Petition No. 302/95 the prayer of the petitioner is to order for constitution of a Medical Board to examine the injured. S.B.Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 1866/95 has been filed with a prayer to release the petitioner on bail. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that none of the petitions has any merit and deserve to be dismissed. 5. The bail application of the petitioner under Section 439, Criminal Procedure Code was dismissed by this Court on merits after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner vide order dated March 27, 1995 as aforesaid. In the said order the petitioner has been given liberty to move a fresh bail application after examination of the injured and admittedly that stage has not yet come. Hence, the second bail application deserves to be dismissed as having no merits. 6. The petition for recalling the order has also no merit and deserves to be dismissed. The bail application was dismissed on merits but liberty was given to the petitioner to move fresh bail application after the statement of the injured is recorded. This liberty was given in favour of the petitioner if he is interested to move fresh bail application. I find that the petition for recalling the said order is wholly mis-conceived and the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. This liberty was given in favour of the petitioner if he is interested to move fresh bail application. I find that the petition for recalling the said order is wholly mis-conceived and the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. The petition for constitution of a Medical Board has also no merit. The charge-sheet has already been filed in the case and the court concerned is seized with the whole matter. Hence, the petitioner is always free to move before the said court for constitution of a Medical Board if he so desires though I have my own doubt that constitution of a Medical Board after such along period would be of any use. In any case, if the petitioner succeeds to show that the concerned Doctor had not properly examined the injured from the side of the complainant, the benefit will always go to the petitioner accused. 8. Thus, all the above three petitions are hereby dismissed.Petition Dismissed. *******