JUDGMENT 1. - This is second bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case arising out of FIR No.142/2010 registered at Police Station Jurhara,Bharatpur for the offences punishable under section 147,148,149,323 and 302 IPC. 2. Earlier bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner bearing S.B.Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2442/2014 was dismissed as withdrawn on 6/3/2014 by passing the following order:- "The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed that the present application may be dismissed as withdrawn. As prayed, the application is, hereby, dismissed as withdrawn. " 3. Mr. AK Gupta counsel for the petitioner submitted that after withdrawal of earlier bail application, two following subsequent events have taken place necessitating filing after the second bail application (a) The investigating agency submitted final report in negative form u/s 169 Cr.P.C opining that there is no evidence as per medical evidence that it is a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder. (b) On 14th March,2014, the Medical Board had opined that cause of death is neuroganic shock and as per earlier postmortem report, court could not formulate definite opinion regarding cause of death but stated in specific terms that it cannot be ruled out that the death of deceased in the present case was natural. 4. In view of the changed circumstances enumerated above by Shri Gupta it will be necessary to notice brief facts of the case. 5. On 26.6.2014 Arshad son of Lallu lodged the report stating therein that on 19.6.2014 Lallu son of Sufeda was sitting in his house. Others were having conversation with him. At about 11 PM Javed Jakir,Shakkar, Arsad and Saddique were present, at that time Lallu left his house and had gone to the house of his brother to retire for the night. In the morning, at 4 am when he and Javed had gone to Jungle to ease themselves, they had witnessed about 31 persons including the petitioner armed with lethal weapons were causing injuries to Lallu as result of previous grudge, and due to the injuries caused Lallu died. 6. As per postmortem report, clotted blood was present at the penile urethra except this there was no other visible injury present on the body of the deceased. It was noted in post postmortem report that bilateral testis and penis are intact, seminal vesicles were normal. 6. As per postmortem report, clotted blood was present at the penile urethra except this there was no other visible injury present on the body of the deceased. It was noted in post postmortem report that bilateral testis and penis are intact, seminal vesicles were normal. After thorough investigation, investigation officer submitted final report in negative form u/s 169 Cr.P.C and had opined as under: " izdj.k esa mi;qZDr fcUnqvksa ij fd;s x;s vuqla/kku ls Li"V gS fd e'rd yYyw dks fnukad 20-6-2010 dks izkr% 4-00 ,0,e0 ij mDr 31 O;fDr;ksa }kjk ykfB;ksa ,oa gwnksa dh pksVsa igqapk dj gR;k djus dh ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 iw.kZr;k >wBh vkSj rF;ghu gS rFkk iksLVekVZe fjiksVZ] xokgku ds dFkuksa ls ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 esa of.kZr ?kVukdze dh iqf"V ugha gksrh gSA mDr i=koyh esa Jh ,l0ih0 lkgc Hkjriqj }kjk vkns'k dzekad Hkjr@vi@,lvkj@14@7151 fnukad 31-3-14 esa izdj.k dks vne cdw vkenu >waB esa urhtk ekuk gSA vr% izdj.k esa frrEck ,Q0vkj0 ua0 35 fnukad 31-3-14 vne odw vkenu >waB esa fdrk dh tkdj okLrs Lohd'fr Jheku~ dh lsok esa lknj izsf"kr gSA Jheku~ rh eqy0 v[rj i= dkyw mQZ jgeku tkfr eso fu0 uaxyk Mwcksdj fnukad 6-1-14 ls U;kf;d vfHkj{kk esa py jgk gSA ftldh /kkjk 169 tk0QkS0 esa fjgkbZ ds vkns'k iznku djus dh d'ik djsaA " 7. Mr. Goswami appearing for the complainant has submitted that the entire investigation is malafide and tainted. It is stated that petitioner is a influential person and, the investigation agency has acted in favour of the accused. It is further contended that the second bail application is not maintainable. Further reliance has been placed on the order of learned Single Judge passed by this Court in 26.7.2010 in case tilted as Gyana Ram v. State of Rajasthan,SB Criminal IVth Bail Application no.6674/2010 , to urge that mere presentation of final report in negative form u/s 169 Cr.P.C in no way vest any right in the accused, to be released on bail. 8. There is no quarrel with the proposition propagated in the judgment relied by counsel for the complainant. It is true that mere presentation of final report in negative form u/s 169 Cr.P.C will ipso facto not vest any right in the accused for grant of bail, however presentation of final report in negative form u/s 169 is relevant consideration for grant of bail. 9. It is true that mere presentation of final report in negative form u/s 169 Cr.P.C will ipso facto not vest any right in the accused for grant of bail, however presentation of final report in negative form u/s 169 is relevant consideration for grant of bail. 9. Taking into account that investigation agency had submitted final report in negative form u/s 169 Cr.P.C and has come to a definite conclusion that the case lodged by complainant is false and there is no medical evidence that the injuries attributed to the petitioner are the cause of death, this court is of the view that continuous detention of the petitioner as an under trial is not warranted. Needless to say, changed circumstances and subsequent events can always be taken into consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case to grant bail after withdrawal of earlier bail application. 10. Consequently, the present second bail application is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial to the satisfaction of the trial court.Bail application allowed. *******