ORDER : 1. This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.447/2020 registered at Police Station Ratangarh, District Churu, for offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that statements of material witnesses namely Vishwas Jangid and Himanshi have been recorded before the competent criminal court as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of Himanshi (PW2), learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid witness has been declared hostile by competent criminal court. Learned counsel submitted that there are large number of omissions and contradictions in the statement of Vishwas Jangid (PW-1). Learned counsel submitted that there is no direct/corroboratory evidence available on record which could connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time to be concluded as the trial has been stayed by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.4.2023 passed in S.B.Cr. Revision No.682/2022 “Navam Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.”, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that merely because Himanshi (PW-2) has turned hostile it cannot be said that the petitioner is involved in commission of alleged crime. Learned counsel submitted that it is wrong to contend that there are large number of contradictions in the statement of the witness Vishwas Jangid (PW-1). Learned counsel submitted that a perusal of the statement of Vishwas Jangid, clearly indicates that the petitioner is directly involved in commission of alleged crime. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.5.2023 dismissed the second bail application filed on behalf of co-accused Mayank Bagoriya being S.B.Cr. Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.2269/2023. Learned counsel submitted that case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused person and since the coordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed the second bail application of co-accused person, the instant bail application preferred by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 4. Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.2269/2023. Learned counsel submitted that case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused person and since the coordinate Bench of this Court has dismissed the second bail application of co-accused person, the instant bail application preferred by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 4. The order dated 15.5.2023 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B.Cr. Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.2269/2023 is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: “The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.447/2020 of Police Station Ratangarh, District Churu, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC. He has preferred this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.The first bail application was dismissed on 15.11.2021 as not pressed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two material witnesses namely Vishwas Jangid and Himanshi have been examined before the Court as PW-1 and PW-2 respectively, in which Hmanshi (PW2) has been declared hostile, which shows that there is no motive. Further, there are certain contradictions, improvements and omissions in the statement of Vishwas Jangid (PW-1) and there is nothing in his statement which connect the present petitioner with the alleged crime. The accused-petitioner is in judicial custody since long and the trial of the case will take sufficient long time to be concluded. Therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the second bail application and submitted that recovery of the deceased’s mobile and ashes of towel, which was burnt by the petitioner along with other accused persons) was made from the possession of the petitioner and according to the postmortem report, cause of death was due to strangulation. In such circumstances, benefit of bail should not be granted to the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the material available on record, it appears that there is call details between the petitioner and other accused persons and deceased’s mobile was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and recovery of ashes of towel, which was burnt by the petitioner along with other accused persons, was also made at the instance of the petitioner. From the perusal of the material available on record, it appears that there is call details between the petitioner and other accused persons and deceased’s mobile was recovered from the possession of the petitioner and recovery of ashes of towel, which was burnt by the petitioner along with other accused persons, was also made at the instance of the petitioner. There is ample evidence on record against the petitioner to connect him with the alleged crime, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I am not inclined to grant the benefit of bail to the present petitioner. deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Hence, the second bail application is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that the observation made hereinabove shall not effect the trial of the case.” 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record. 6. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and having perused the FIR, challan papers, the statement of Vishwas Jangid (PW-1) and the order dated 15.5.2023 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court while deciding second bail application of co-accused Mayank Bagoriya, this Court prima facie finds that the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused Mayank Bagoriya. This Court also prima facie finds that sufficient corroboratory evidence in the form of call exchanged between the petitioner and co-accused persons, the statements of the father of the deceased Subhash and the fact that the deceased was seen in the company of present petitioner on the date of alleged incident. This Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail only for the reason that the trial has been stayed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.4.2023 at the instance of another co-accused Navam. 7. Accordingly, the second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. 8. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.