JUDGMENT 1. - This second bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.RC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an FIR bearing No. 374/2014 was registered at P.S. Mahila Thana, Kota against the petitioner for offence under Section 498A, 323, 326, 307 IPC. The investigation was commenced and after completion of investigation, police arrested the petitioner. During investigation, police added Section 307 IPC. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the bail application before the court below but same was dismissed vide order dated 22.9.2014. Relevant operative portion of the judgment reads as under: " vkgr js[kk ds /kkjk 161 n0iz0la0 ds dFku dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA mDr dFku esa vkgr us izdV fd;k gS og crZu ekat jgh Fkh vkSj lkl us dgk fd jksVh] cuk] blh ckr ij mls izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr ls dgdj fiVok;k eSa ihgj vkus yxh rks esjs ifr lqfuy us eq>s idM+k nsoj eksuw us esjs mij dsjkslhu Mky fn;k rFkk lkl us esjs diM+ksa esa vkx yxk nhA ftlls eSa flj] gkFk lhus ,oa dej ij ty xbZA esjk ifr eq>s Mhlh,e yk;k vkSj dejk fdjk;s dk ysdj esjk ns'kh bykt djok;kA esjs ifr eq>s Mhlh,e yk;k vkSj dejk fdjk;s dk ysdj esjk ns'kh bykt djok;kA esjs firk dks tyus dh [kcj feyus ij lquhy eq>s firk ds ikl NksM+ x;kA fQj lquhy ugha vk;k rc esjs firk us fjiksVZ ntZ djokbZA vkgr ds fpfdRldh; izfrosnu esa vkgr ds cuZ Qyse dh pksVsa flj] xnZu] lhus] ,cMksfeu] fiNyh csd vkfn ij vkuk crk;h x;h gSA izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr ij vkjksfir vijk/k csd vkfn ij vkuk crk;h x;h gSA izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr ij vkjksfir vijk/k dh izd'fr xaHkhj gSA vr% xq.kkoxq.k ij dksbZ fVIi.kh vafdr fd;s fcuk izdj.k ds leLr rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr dks tekur dk ykHk fn;k tkuk mfpr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA " 3. The petitioner thereafter moved earlier bail application before this court which too was dismissed on 8.10.2014 as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh bail application before the court below after filing of challan. 4. It is contended that after filing of challan, the petitioner moved fresh bail application before the court below, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 18.11.2014. 4. It is contended that after filing of challan, the petitioner moved fresh bail application before the court below, but the same was also dismissed vide order dated 18.11.2014. relevant operative portion of the judgment reads as under: " mHk; i{k ds rdksZa ij euu fd;k x;k rFkk i=koyh dk /;kuiwoZd voyksdu fd;k x;kA i=koyh ij miyC/k ihfM+rk js[kk] egkohj cSjok] Jherh :de.kh ckbZ] euh"k] ekaxhckbZ] NksVsyky ds c;kuksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr dk iwoZ esa tekur vkosnu fnukad 22-9-2014 dks vLohdkj fd;k tk pqdk gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k vkjksi i= izLrqr gksus ds ckn iqu% vkosnu i= izLrqr djus dh NwV ds lkFk vkosnu dks okil ys fy;k x;kA izdj.k esa vkjksi i= izLrqr fd;k tk pqdk gS] fdUrq vkjksi i= izLrqr gksus ls izdj.k dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa dksbZ lkjoku ifjorZu ugha gqvk gSA izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr ij vkjksfir vijk/k dh izd'fr xaHkhj gSA vr% xq.kkoxq.k ij dksbZ fVIi.kh fd;s fcuk leLr rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, izkFkhZ vfHk;qDr dk tekur vkosnu Lohdkj fdlh tkuk mfor izrhr ugha gksrk gSA " 5. Hence this second bail application has been moved before this court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is in judicial custody since long, investigation has been completed, challan has been filed, and conclusion of the trial is likely to take time, eye witnesses of this case in their statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.R.C. have denied the prosecutions story, and the case of the petitioner is on better footing. It is also contended that except the petitioner, name of two persons has been deleted from the investigation and police has not filed challan against them and only petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Hence, the accused petitioner should be released on bail. 7. The Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner is the main accused, and name of other two persons has rightly been deleted from the investigation. However, he requested that accused petitioner has committed serious offence, hence he should not be released on bail. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and findings as quoted herein above, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not think it just and proper to accept the bail application of the petitioner. Accordingly, this second bail application is dismissed. 9. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned orders and findings as quoted herein above, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not think it just and proper to accept the bail application of the petitioner. Accordingly, this second bail application is dismissed. 9. However, the learned court below is directed to record the statement of material whiteness first and thereafter if petitioner moves any fresh bail application before it, same should be decided in accordance with law.II. Bail application dismissed. *******