JUDGMENT : P.K. LOHRA, J. 1. Prosecuted for offences under Sections 342, 323, 365, 307, 395 and 120-B IPC pursuant to CR No. 78/17 of Police Station Gida, District Barmer and apprehended on 4th of June 2017, petitioner has laid this bail application under Section 439 Cr. P.C. Attempt made by the petitioner for seeking bail before Addl. District & Sessions Judge No. 1, Barmer (for short, ‘learned trial Court’) proved abortive inasmuch as his bail plea is declined by learned trial Court vide its order dated 6th of July 2017. 2. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Bora, submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the matter inasmuch as allegations in the FIR are founded on assumptions. Mr. Bora would contend that during investigation petitioner's involvement in commission of offences is shown solely on the basis of call detail sans any inculpatory evidence against him. Learned Senior Counsel has urged that victim Dharma Ram in his police statements has identified accused Harish s/o Tipu Ram without naming the petitioner. Elaborating his submissions in this behalf, Mr. Bora has urged that victim Dharma Ram in his statements has castigated accused Harish for giving him beatings and electric shocks. Learned counsel has further submitted that the learned trial Court has essentially declined bail to the petitioner by placing heavy reliance on pending 13 criminal cases against him for various offences. While referring to the pending cases, learned Senior Counsel has argued that out of 13 cases, in one case petitioner has been convicted for offence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC whereas in 9 cases petitioner has been acquitted/discharged and only three are still pending trial. Learned Senior Counsel has contended that though victim Dharma Ram has suffered multiple injuries but as per injury report and x-ray report all injuries are simple in nature. Lastly, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that petitioner is under incarceration since 4th of June 2017 and after investigation charge-sheet in the matter has already been filed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Rathore, has vehemently opposed bail application of the petitioner. Mr. Rathore has urged that victim has suffered multiple injuries and petitioner's role in commission of offences is clearly evident from the call details. Learned Public Prosecutor has also urged that taking into account pending criminal cases against the petitioner, his bail plea is liable to be thwarted. 4. Mr. Rathore, has vehemently opposed bail application of the petitioner. Mr. Rathore has urged that victim has suffered multiple injuries and petitioner's role in commission of offences is clearly evident from the call details. Learned Public Prosecutor has also urged that taking into account pending criminal cases against the petitioner, his bail plea is liable to be thwarted. 4. Mr. Pradeep Shah, learned counsel for the complainant, has strenuously urged that there is concrete evidence collected during investigation to show involvement of petitioner in commission of the offences. Mr. Shah has also submitted that victim Dharma Ram in his statements has not named/identified petitioner for the simple reason that except accused Harish all others were unknown to him. Laying emphasis on the past antecedents of the petitioner, learned counsel for the complainant submits that he is not entitled for grant of bail in the matter. 5. I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar and perused the materials available on record. 6. There remains no quarrel that petitioner besides four other accused persons is charged for serious offences including offence under Sections 307 and 395 IPC but then learned trial Court has essentially declined bail to the petitioner solely on the basis of pendency of 13 cases against him. During arguments, it has come to the fore that petitioner is convicted in one case whereas in 9 cases either he is acquitted or discharged. Therefore, there are 3 cases in which trial is pending against the petitioner. 7. While it is true that involvement of an accused in other cases or his long criminal history can be considered by the Court while hearing bail plea but involvement of accused in other cases cannot be made the sole basis to deny him bail. The primary question for consideration in a case of bail is as to whether there is some material against accused or not. If it is noticed by the Court that there is no material against accused, or the available material is insufficient, or the material is prima facie not of sterling worth, the fact that he is involved in some other case by itself cannot be a ground to reject his application for bail. 8. If it is noticed by the Court that there is no material against accused, or the available material is insufficient, or the material is prima facie not of sterling worth, the fact that he is involved in some other case by itself cannot be a ground to reject his application for bail. 8. In the present matter, though prosecution has collected material to establish nexus of the petitioner with the commission of offence, but that material itself is prima facie insufficient to dissuade this Court for favourable disposition of the bail application. That apart, the injuries suffered by the victim are also not of grave and serious nature rather they are simple injuries. One more important aspect of the matter is that petitioner is in custody since 4th of June 2017 and after investigation charge-sheet in the matter has already been filed. Therefore, in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant matter, Court feels that further incarceration of the petitioner is not desirable. Thus, in totality, while refraining to make any comments on merits of the case, I feel persuaded to accept this bail application. 9. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr. P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner Khartharam S/o Balaram, arrested in connection with CR No. 78/17 of Police Station Gida, District Barmer, may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. Bail application allowed.