JUDGMENT 1. - By this application moved under Section 439 Cr.P.C. the accused applicant has sought bail in Case No. 9/2006 arising out of F.I.R. No. 11/06 P.S. Dudhwakhara, District Churu pertaining to offence under Sections 302, 364,143,120-B I PC. 2. Briefly stated, the necessary facts for disposal of this matter may be stated like this that Parsa Ram s/o Mukha Ram, resident of Dudhwakhara lodged a written report in the Police Station Dudhwarkara at about 7 AM in the morning stating inter alia therein that deceased Ranveer was his nephew and on 25.1.2006 in the evening at about 7:15/7:30 PM the deceased, who was a Conductor, while coming from Churu left the bus in his village and was going towards Dhobiyon ka Mohalla. At that point of time two unknown persons were chasing him on foot and thereafter one jeep was following them. The persons sitting in the jeep forcibly caught hold of deceased and took him with them in the jeep. Thereafter, only his dead body was found. Some of the persons sitting in the jeep were identified. Previously, the case was registered under Sections 365, 143 IPC but subsequently on account of the dead body found of deceased the case was converted to one under Sections 302, 364, 147, 148, 149 and 120-B IPC. After completion of investigation charge sheet has been filed. 3. The application moved by the applicant has been rejected by the learned trial court vide order dated 27.5.2006, hence the present application has been filed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary. 5. The contention of the learned counsel is that the involvement of the applicant in the matter is only on the basis of Section 120-B of IPC. His further contention is that there is no other evidence available on record to connect the accused with the crime, nor the accused has anything to do with the present incident. The learned counsel in support of his submissions has placed reliance on the statement of Sarva Shri Daya Ram - the owner of the bus, Smt. Indira - wife of deceased Ranveer, and Sultan s/o Ganesh Ram - uncle of the deceased. The learned counsel submits that in the circumstances the accused is entitled to be released on bail. 6. The learned counsel in support of his submissions has placed reliance on the statement of Sarva Shri Daya Ram - the owner of the bus, Smt. Indira - wife of deceased Ranveer, and Sultan s/o Ganesh Ram - uncle of the deceased. The learned counsel submits that in the circumstances the accused is entitled to be released on bail. 6. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the mastermind of the incident is the present accused who was having enmity with the deceased. His further submission is that even the statements referred to by the learned counsel would disclose the name of the present accused and the enmity with the deceased though in the statement it has come that subsequently some compromise was arrived at. 7. The counsel for the complainant has submitted that in this case two mobile phones have been recovered on the basis of disclosure statements made by the accused applicant and the details of the mobile phones available in the file would show the involvement of the accused in the present case. 8. I have considered the submissions made before me and I have also carefully perused the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and also carefully gone through the details of the mobile phone recovered at the instance of accused applicant. 9. It is a case where deceased was done to death. He was forcibly lifted in a jeep and thereafter only his dead body was found. Even the statements referred by the learned counsel make a mention of the accused applicant. Be as it may, it is a serious offence under Section 302 of IPC and at this stage it is very difficult to come to a positive conclusion that prima facie there is no involvement of the accused in the present case. 10. Even the statements referred by the learned counsel make a mention of the accused applicant. Be as it may, it is a serious offence under Section 302 of IPC and at this stage it is very difficult to come to a positive conclusion that prima facie there is no involvement of the accused in the present case. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering various earlier decisions, observed that the circumstances to be considered in an application for bail are (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 11. Keeping in mind the above guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, I am of the opinion that prima facie it cannot be said that accused has been falsely implicated and there is no case whatsoever against the accused applicant. Unless some material witnesses are examined in the case, till then I do not find it to be a fit case for the consideration of bail of the accused applicant. 12. In view of above, the application stands rejected.Bail Refused. *******