JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the material available on record. 2. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.440/2014 registered at Police Station Tibbi, District Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 449, 302 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’). He has preferred this bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’). 3. As the pleaded facts and record would reveal, on 31.12.2014, Mangilal and his wife, Smt.Kamla were murdered at their dhani situated in the agricultural land of Chak 1 K.S.P. An FIR, in respect of the said murder, was lodged by their son, namely, Vishnudutt on 31.12.2014 at about 8:15 p.m. with the SHO, Police Station Tibbi, and the same was registered as FIR No.440/2014 for the offences under Section 449 and 302 IPC. 4. The investigation commenced, and thereafter, chargesheets were filed against the other accused persons, but investigation against the present petitioner was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. reflecting absconding of the petitioner. However, finally, a charge-sheet under Section 299 Cr.P.C. was filed on 09.04.2019 against the present petitioner, and thereafter, when the present petitioner surrendered before the learned court below on 12.07.2019, a supplementary chargesheet No.79G dated 17.08.2019 was filed against him. The petitioner is in custody since 12.07.2019. 5. Mr. Pradeep Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner has shown to this Court the stages when the charge-sheets were filed, and has tried to demonstrate from the record that while the conclusions were drawn against all the other co-accused, the investigation was kept pending against the present petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this court towards the statements of Surendra, Sandeep, Pankaj, Ramswaroop and Ashwini Kumar, and has tried to indicate that the complete evidence was based on surmises and conjectures or hearsay, and that, there was no direct evidence against the present petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the other co-accused have already been released on bail, and in this regard, has shown to this Court the order dated 14.05.2018 passed by this Hon’ble Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.4264/2018 (Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan). 8. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. Sudhir Saruparia and Mr. Bail Application No.4264/2018 (Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan). 8. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. Sudhir Saruparia and Mr. Vipul Dharnia, learned counsels for the complainant, while opposing the bail application, have submitted that at all times, the investigation was being made upon the present petitioner, who was the main accused, as the land in question measuring 53 bighas, on which the murdered couple were residing and doing agricultural activity, was recorded in the name of present petitioner Vinod Kumar, and that, he claimed to be the owner of the said land. Learned counsels further submitted that though the murdered couple as well as the present petitioner were relatives, but there was continuous dispute regarding possession of the land in question, and thus, it was strongly reflected that present petitioner Vinod Kumar would have been involved in the act in question. Learned counsels have also shown this Court the statement of Roshni, Renu and Santosh, in which they have deposed that previously also, there was an altercation regarding the land in question between the family members of the deceased couple and present petitioner Vinod Kumar, and that, the present petitioner was behind such dispute. Learned counsels also submitted that the land in question was to be changed to the name of the family of the murdered couple, but present petitioner Vinod Kumar was hesitating in doing so, and inspite of time and again assuring that he would hand over the land, he was not enabling to get recording of the necessary entries in respect of the said land done. 9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the consistent stand that for three months, there was an effort for mutating the land to be entered in the name of the murdered couple and their son Vishnudutt, clearly establishes a connection between the present petitioner and the murdered couple, which can easily be attributed to be the cause of the conflict. 10. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the third bail application (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5095/2018) filed Amit Kumar s/o Sh. Amar Singh, who was the main co-accused with the present petitioner, has already been rejected by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 08.01.2019. 10. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the third bail application (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5095/2018) filed Amit Kumar s/o Sh. Amar Singh, who was the main co-accused with the present petitioner, has already been rejected by this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 08.01.2019. The said order dated 08.01.2019 reads as under:- “Facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 302, 449 & 120B IPC arising out of FIR No.440/2014, registered at Police Station Tibbi, District Hanumangarh, accused-petitioner has laid this third post arrest bail application. The first bail application of petitioner was rejected on 13.01.2017 followed by dismissal of second bail application on 14.12.2017. Arguing on this third bail application, it is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Kumbhat, that after rejection of second bail application of the petitioner, co-accused Vijay Kumar has been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench while considering his second bail application. Elaborating his submissions, in this behalf, learned counsel would contend that case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from co-accused Vijay Kumar. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of material available on record, it is rather difficult to prove nexus of the petitioner with the alleged offence of double murder unfurled in the FIR. Learned counsel has also urged that statements of some of the witnesses, viz., Ramswaroop, Ashiwini Kumar & Pankaj, recorded during investigation after a lapse of seven months from the date of incident, are prima facie not inspiring confidence and barring these alleged inculpatory statements there is nothing on record to even remotely connect the petitioner with the alleged offences. Taking a dig at the statements of these three witnesses, learned counsel has strenuously urged that insinuations hurled by them against the petitioner are prima facie based on conjunctures and surmises. Learned counsel has also urged that co-accused persons, viz., Kuldeep @ Gabbar, Jitendera Middha @ Kaka, Suresh Bhadu, Rajveer @ Rajendra, Manpreet and Krishna @ Bagadi have already been enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application of petitioner. It is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that after rejection of second bail application there is no change much less substantial change in the circumstances. Learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that one of the accused, namely, Vinod Kumar is still absconding and yet to be apprehended. Mr. It is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor that after rejection of second bail application there is no change much less substantial change in the circumstances. Learned Public Prosecutor has further argued that one of the accused, namely, Vinod Kumar is still absconding and yet to be apprehended. Mr. Saruparia, learned counsel for the complainant, while concurring with the submissions of learned Public Prosecutor, contends that petitioner and one Vijay Bishnoi hired a house adjoining the place of incident, and therefore, his involvement as conspirator in committing murder of two senior citizens, Mangi Lal and his wife Kamla Devi, cannot be ruled out. It is also argued by learned counsel that case of petitioner is clearly distinguishable from other co-accused persons inasmuch as after the incident, petitioner hosted a party at his dhani, which is adjacent to the place of incident. I have bestowed my consideration to the arguments advanced at Bar and perused the material available on record. While it is true that Vijay Kumar and most of the accused persons have been enlarged on bail but then case of petitioner, in my opinion, is clearly distinguishable from other co-accused persons including Vijay Kumar. The Coordinate Bench, while granting bail to Vijay Kumar, has also observed that present petitioner is the principal accused in the matter. In view thereof, considering the gruesome murder of two senior citizens and the fact that one of the co-accused is still at large, I feel disinclined to grant any indulgence to the petitioner. Consequently, this third bail application fails and same is hereby rejected.” 11. This Court has also perused the order dated 9.12.2019 of framing of charges passed by the learned court below, whereby after a detailed deliberation, accused Kuldeep Singh @ Gabbar, Rajveer @ Rajendra @ Raju, Manpreet @ Manna, Jitendra Middha and Vijay Kumar have been discharged of the offences of Sections 449, 302 and 120B IPC, whereas vide the said order itself, the offence has been held to be made out against Vinod Kumar (present petitioner), Pramod Sharma, Amit Kumar and Suresh Bhadu under Sections 449, 302/34 and 120 B IPC. 12. 12. The detailed deliberation, while framing of charges against the present petitioner, clearly indicate that he was the root point of the dispute regarding 53 bighas of land, which was in possession of the murdered couple and their son Vishnudutt, and it was the bone of contention between the parties, particularly, the owner of the land in question, in whose name the record of the land was entered, i.e. Vinod Kumar, the present petitioner. 13. Taking note of the fact that the trial is yet to commence and the petitioner, who was absconding at all times, has been sent into custody, upon his surrender before the learned court below, only on 12.07.2019, followed by framing of charges on 09.12.2019, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a right time for granting bail to the present petitioner, and more particularly, in light of the fact that other accused persons, who were granted bail, had already remained in jail for a long time. 14. In view of the above and having regard to the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present petitioner. 15. Consequently, the present bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.