ORDER : 1. These four bail applications under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. have been preferred on behalf of the petitioners Shaitan Ram, Suresh Bhat, Jugal Kishore Gill and Suresh Jakhar @ Tonu Jakhar. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein-below: S. No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 125/2022 2. Concerned Police Station Jayal 3. District Nagaur 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 143, 323, 302, 427 and 120-B IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act 5. Offences added, if any -- 6. Date of passing of impugned order 29.04.2024 (Shaitan Ram) 23.08.2024 (Suresh Jakhar @ Tonu Jakhar) 05.07.2024 (Jugal Kishore Gill) 23.08.2024 (Suresh Bhat) 2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that no case for the alleged offences is made out against the petitioners and they have been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to them and his further incarceration is not warranted. Hence, it is prayed that the petitioners may be enlarged on bail. 3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail applications and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail. 4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. 5. The case got lodged at the instance of first informant Sitaram, who also received injuries in an assault made by the accused persons named in the Parcha Bayan recorded on 26.10.2022 at 10.35 a.m. by a police officer at the Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital, Nagaur. There are allegations that an assault was made upon the complainant and the deceased Rajesh and as a necessary consequence of which, Rajesh succumbed to death. The investigation reveals active participation of making the assault upon the victim and the deceased by the petitioners Suresh Jakhar and Suresh Bhat. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and conferring with the Investigating Officer and going through the relevant record, I am convinced that looking to the nature and gravity of the offences, active participation of the above two petitioners in committing the crime of murder and availability of material in support thereof, I do not see any reason to extend the benefit of bail to them. The evidence has not been discussed deliberately simply for the apprehension that any observation of this court may put a serious dent to their case during trial or the trial Judge may get influence from it. However, viewed from all angles, no case is made out for grant of bail to accused petitioners Suresh Jakhar and Suresh Bhat. Accordingly, the bail applications preferred by them bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14009/2024 and 11981/2024 are dismissed. 6. As far as the bail applications of accused Shaitan Ram and Jugal Kishore Gill are concerned, suffice it would be to say that the name of these two persons do not find place in the Parcha Bayan of Sita Ram, the sole eye-witness of the incident. As a matter of fact, there is no other person, who deposed about the incident in which victim Sita Ram and Rajesh sustained injuries and the injuries of Rajesh proved fatal, as a consequence of which he died. 7. While conferring with the Investigating Officer as to how he roped the names of the above two persons in the case, he tried to convince that though these two persons were not present at the crime scene and did not participate in beating of the victim and the deceased, but some material was collected during investigation, from which it was inferred that the duo were the conspirators of the crime. For the purpose of satisfaction, I have minutely gone through the file, but fail to trace any positive evidence, which may persuade this court to deny bail to the above mentioned two persons. The element of criminal conspiracy seeks existence of a plan or scheme to execute the intended act, which in this case is to kill the deceased Rajesh. No material has been collected to show the above fact regarding making of a plan to execute killing of the deceased. The prosecution evidence is also lacking evidence of preparations at the hands of the petitioners, making strategies or any effective step to achieve the common object of killing the deceased. There has to be a concrete evidence showing communication between the conspirators, but herein in this case, no concrete material has been collected by the agency, taking inference of which they can be denied to get bail. There has to be a concrete evidence showing communication between the conspirators, but herein in this case, no concrete material has been collected by the agency, taking inference of which they can be denied to get bail. It is imperative upon the prosecution agency to bring on record some matter, based on which an inference can be drawn that there was agreement of minds between the conspirators to commit the crime. The evidence to facilitate the crime is required to be available on record. The accusation cannot rest upon bald allegations. May be there are allegations, but this court feels that sufficient material is not available on record to presume availability of such material, which may disentitle them to be released on bail. 8. It would be pertinent to mention here that during the course of hearing, an affidavit of Harish Kumar Sankhla, the Investigating Officer, was filed on record and a perusal of which is making it abundantly clear that the petitioners Shaitan Ram @ Nepi and Jugal Kishore Gill have been made accused in this case for hatching conspiracy to commit murder of the deceased. A perusal of the affidavit is reflecting that these two persons were not present at the crime spot and it is the perception of the Investigating Officer that these two were the facilitators of the crime. 9. Be that as it may, this court is desisting from giving any final opinion on the quality of evidence since doing so may influence the trial Judge or may cause prejudice to any of the party. However, looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the facts mentioned above, particularly, the fact that these two persons were not named in the FIR and from the investigation, their presence at the spot was not found and so also looking to the nature of material against them, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioners Shaitan Ram and Jugal Kishore Gill in the present matter. 10. Accordingly, the bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. preferred on behalf of petitioners Shaitan Ram and Jugal Kishore Gill being S.B. Criminal Misc. III Bail Application No. 10330/2024 and S.B. Criminal Misc. 10. Accordingly, the bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. preferred on behalf of petitioners Shaitan Ram and Jugal Kishore Gill being S.B. Criminal Misc. III Bail Application No. 10330/2024 and S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 12893/2024 are allowed and it is ordered that these two accused-petitioners shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.