JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. 1. The present third bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody since 08.07.2014 in relation to F.I.R. No. 248/2014, Police Station Pratap Nagar, District Jodhpur for offences under Sections 302/120B and 212 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the accused-petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record. 3. While deciding the previous application (No. 3886/2018) for bail of the petitioner vide order dated 23.08.2018, this Court had given him liberty to file fresh bail application after the statement of the IO was recorded at the trial and the instant third application for bail has been filed after the IO Shri Somkaran (PW. 21) has been examined at the trial. 4. Briefly stated the prosecution case as against the accused petitioner is based on an aspersion that he conspired with the principal accused Chenaram and others in the murder of Sanjay. As per the prosecution, acting in furtherance of the said conspiracy, the petitioner joined a funeral procession in which the deceased Sanjay was also present. The petitioner allegedly, provided the location details of Sanjay to the main accused Chenaram through his mobile phone and acting in furtherance of the said information, the accused Chenaram and some other accused who came to the place of occurrence in a jeep, got down and thereafter Chenaram fired a gun-shot at Sanjay which proved fatal. The entire substratum of the prosecution as against the petitioner was founded on an allegation that during investigation, the call and location details of the mobile No. 9571760882 allegedly in use of the petitioner were procured by the Investigating Officer, which indicate that the petitioner provided the locations to accused Chenaram. In order to verify the fact that the call details were indeed sufficient to connect the petitioner with the alleged incident, this Court had previously directed that the evidence of the IO shall be recorded and the petitioner was, given liberty to file a fresh application for bail thereafter. 5. Shri Bhagirath Bishnoi, learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that the statement of the Investigating Officer Somkaran (PW. 5. Shri Bhagirath Bishnoi, learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that the statement of the Investigating Officer Somkaran (PW. 21) has been recorded at trial and from a bare perusal of his testimony, it is manifest that the petitioner had no connection whatsoever with the SIM No. 9571760882 and that even the call details were not exhibited by the prosecution during evidence of the said witness. He thus urges that there not an iota of evidence on the record of the case so as to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. Shri Bishnoi further submits that out of the total 40 witnesses, cited by the prosecution, 22 have been examined till date, 6 have been given up, 2 have expired and 10 more are remained to be examined. He thus, urges that the petitioner who has been in custody for more than five and half years deserves indulgence of bail during pendency of the trial. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri Sunil Mehta, learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by petitioner's counsel. They contended that the offending mobile sim which was used in the conspiracy was recovered from the possession of the petitioner alongwith a mobile phone. It is further submitted that the call details could not be exhibited during the evidence of the IO inadvertently and an application has been filed before the trial court for this purpose. It was also submitted that the bail applications of the co-accused persons namely Bablu Singh, Ramesh Rao, Om Prakash and Bhawani Singh, whose cases stand on a better footing than that of the petitioner, have been rejected by this Court. The bail application of one accused Dinesh has also been rejected by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. They thus urge that the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material available on record. 8. At the outset, it may be noted here that the case of the present petitioner is totally distinguishable from that of the other co-accused persons, who are alleged to have arrived at the place of incident with main accused Chenaram in a single vehicle. Chenaram got down from the vehicle and fired the fatal gunshot at the deceased Sanjay, who was in a funeral procession. Chenaram got down from the vehicle and fired the fatal gunshot at the deceased Sanjay, who was in a funeral procession. Thus, the case against these accused is more by way of direct involvement in the crime whereas the petitioner is alleged to be a conspirator. The petitioner Rajesh @ Richarge is alleged to be present in a funeral procession with the deceased Sanjay. As per the prosecution theory, the petitioner was constantly in contact with accused Chenaram and he provided the location of the funeral procession to Chenaram over mobile so as to facilitate the conspiracy to murder the deceased. The foundation of the prosecution cases is based on a purely conjectural assumption that the mobile No. 9571760882 was used by the accused petitioner for providing such information to the accused Chenaram. A perusal of the seizure memo of the mobile instrument recovered from the petitioner at the time of his arrest indicates that no sim was found therein. The IO Somkaran (PW. A perusal of the seizure memo of the mobile instrument recovered from the petitioner at the time of his arrest indicates that no sim was found therein. The IO Somkaran (PW. 21) made the following admissions when cross-examined during trial:- ^^;g dguk lgh gS fd izdj.k esa jkts’k mQZ fjpktZ ls dksbZ eksckbZy o fle cjken ugha gqbZ gSA jkts'k mQZ fjpktZ ds uacj vkt iwjs ;kn ugha gS] i=koyh ns[kdj crk ldrk gwaA ;g dguk lgh gS fd eksckbZy u-a9571760882 jkts'k mQZ fjpktZ ds uke dk gks] ,slk dksbZ nLrkost i=koyh esa ugh gSA mDr fle uacj dk /kkjd dkSu gS] eq>s vkt tkudkjh ugha gSA fle ua- ls vkSj fdu&fdu O;fDRk;ksa ls ckr gqbZ bldh eq>s tkudkjh ugha gS] i=koyh ns[kdj crk ldrk gwA ;g fle fdl vkbZ-,e-bZ-vkbZ ds eksckbZy uacj ,fDVo jgk eq>s tkudkjh ugha gS] vt [kqn dgk fd Jh Hkksykjke ,l-vkb- }kjk fjpktZ ls vuqla/kku fd;k x;k FkkA tks vkt thfor ugha gSA ;g dguk lgh gS fd i=koyh ij mDr fle uacj fdl fo'ks"k daiuh ds eksckbZy esa ,fDVosV jgk o ml eksckbZy dk ekfyd dkSu Fkk] blds vksujf'ki ckcr dksbZ nLrkost i=koyh ij ugha gSA ;g ckr lgh gS fd vUos"k.k esa tks uacj pSukjke ds crk, x, gS 9829729633] 9571653379 mDr uacj dk fle /kkjd pSukjke Fkk bl laca/k esa daiuh ls nLrkosth lk{; esjs }kjk ladfyr ugha fd, x,A vt [kqn dgk fd pSukjke dh tkekryk'kh esa tks eksckbZy tCr gqvk Fkk mDr eksckbZy esa ;g fle yxh gqbZ FkhA ;g ckr lgh gS fd ,slh dksbZ ekSf[kd lk{; ugh vkbZ dh Qksu ua-9571760882 ?kVuk ds jkst jkts'k mQZ fjpktZ gh iz;ksx esa ys jgk gksA^^ 9. From a perusal of the above statement, it is clear as day-light that the SIM No. 9571760882 allegedly used in the conspiracy and providing the location of the deceased Sanjay to the principal accused Chenaram was not issued in the name of the petitioner; no evidence was collected during investigation so as to establish that the petitioner was using the said SIM. In this background, the prosecution theory regarding the petitioner having used the said SIM (referred to supra) to provide location of the deceased to the main accused comes under a serious cloud of doubt. In this background, the prosecution theory regarding the petitioner having used the said SIM (referred to supra) to provide location of the deceased to the main accused comes under a serious cloud of doubt. The contention of Shri Sunil Mehta learned counsel representing the appellant that the petitioner remained absconding after the incident is also unsustainable considering the fact that the petitioner was arrested just within seven days of the incident. 10. In view of the above discussion, I am of the firm opinion that the case of the present petitioner is absolutely distinguishable from that of the co-accused persons whose bail applications have been rejected in the manner stated above. The petitioner has been in custody for more than five and half years. The prosecution has moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. which is pending consideration before the trial court. Ten witnesses are still to be examined at the trial and as such, culmination of the proceedings is not likely in near future. 11. Accordingly, this third bail application is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner Rajesh @ Richarge S/o. Shri Ramesh Singh arrested in connection with the F.I.R. No. 248/2014, registered at Police Station Pratap Nagar, District Jodhpur shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the 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.