JUDGMENT 1. - Both these second bail applications u/s 439 Cr.RC. have been filed by and on behalf of petitioners Gyana Ram, Laxman Ram and Kana Ram against whom charge-sheet has been filed along with others for the offences u/ss. 147, 341, 323, 365, 367 and 382 I.P.C. in F.I.R. No. 130/02 RS. Local Distt. Sikar. Their first bail applications were dismissed vide order dated 8.4.2003 with liberty to file fresh bail applications before the concerned court after filing of the challan which has now been filed. 2. Since both these applications arise out of same F.I.R., they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently contended that this false case has been foisted on the petitioners due to the influence exercised by the complainant, who is an advocate. The petitioners have their victim acquitted in some cases and are on bail in all other cases. A large number of cases were registered against the petitioner Kanaram to book him under the National Security Act but the Hon'ble Advisory Board under the National Security Act has declined to approve his detention and accordingly he has been ordered to be released. The allegations of terrorising the witnesses have been levelled during the pendency of these bail applications with a view to prejudice the court against the petitioners from releasing them on bail. They have also submitted that the pendency of cases against the petitioners by itself does not dis-entitle them from being released on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant and the learned RP. have both opposed the bail applications with equal vehemence. They have submitted that petitioner Kana Ram indulges in illicit trafficking liquor and is an habitual offender. About 37 cases have been registered against them in different police stations and are pending trial in various courts of District Nagaur Ajmer and Sikar. According to them petitioner Kana Ram is a dare devil and if released on bail he would again indulge in similar offences. Alluding to the facts of the case, they have submitted that in the instant case an advocate has been abducted and beaten severely and this has been done with the object of dissuading the learned counsel and his father who is also an advocate from prosecuting the case of one Moolaram Harijan. Alluding to the facts of the case, they have submitted that in the instant case an advocate has been abducted and beaten severely and this has been done with the object of dissuading the learned counsel and his father who is also an advocate from prosecuting the case of one Moolaram Harijan. Thus, they have interfered with the course of justice which is a grave incidence in the democratic set-up. If the petitioners are enlarged on bail, this will send a wrong message to the people at large, because it will demoralise the society and there will be terror in the minds of the witnesses who would not dare depose against them. Thus, they would prove a menace to the democratic system of the country. In this regard, they have referred to several authorities of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this court wherein guidelines have been laid down for the courts about the decision of bail applications. They have also strongly rebutted the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have been falsely roped-in in this case. They have submitted that prior to registering of the present case, large number of other similar cases have been registered and are pending against the petitioners so it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to say that the case has been falsely cooked up against them due to the influence of the complainant who is an Advocate. If it had been so, earlier cases would not have been registered and pending against them. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar and have also perused the relevant record placed before me as also looked into the authorities referred to at the bar. 6. Without making any comments on the merits of the case and the antecedents of the petitioners at this stage because this may prejudice the case of either party at the trial, but taking into consideration the nature of allegations against the petitioners, the materials available or. record against them and all other facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to them at this stage. 7. Hence, these bail applications are hereby rejected at this stage.Bail applications rejected. *******