ORDER : KULDEEP MATHUR, J. 1. This third application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.254/2020 registered at Police Station Nokha, District Bikaner, for offences under Sections 302, 307, 323, 341, 147, 148, 149, 427, 325 and 120-B IPC. 2. The second bail application (S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.8692/2023) preferred on behalf of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 26.07.2023 by a detailed order. The order dated 26.07.2023 is reproduced herein below for the ready reference:- “This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.254/2020, registered at Police Station Nokha, District Bikaner, for offences under Sections 302, 307, 323, 341, 147, 148, 149, 427, 325 & 120-B IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24.05.2023, granting liberty to file a fresh bail application after recording of the statements of Dr. Ram Ratan before competent criminal court who had conducted the post mortem of deceased- Jitendra Singh, son of Bajrang Singh. As per prosecution, owing to political rivalry between the petitioner and deceased, on 17.07.2020, at about 2:15 pm, the deceased was surrounded by the present petitioner and 14-15 other accused persons who brutally assaulted the deceased with axe, lathis and iron rods etc. The complainant- injured Rajinder Singh (brother of the deceased) on hearing the cries of the deceased, rushed to the spot, where he saw the present petitioner, holding an axe in his hand was shouting ‘Jitendra ko jaan se maar do’. The present petitioner, on seeing complainant- injured Rajinder Singh, told co-accused persons to attack the complainant, who thereupon attacked him and inflicted injuries. The complainant- injured Rajinder Singh and deceased- Jitendra were taken to PBM Hospital, Bikaner, where deceased- Jitendra succumbed to the injuries. In the alleged incident which occurred on 17.07.2020, as per the injury report dated 23.07.2020, the complainant-injured Rajendra Singh sustained seven injuries, out of which four injuries i.e. injury Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 were grievous in nature, whereas, injury Nos.3 and 5 were found to be simple in nature. Deceased- Jitendra Singh also sustained multiple injuries in four areas. In the alleged incident which occurred on 17.07.2020, as per the injury report dated 23.07.2020, the complainant-injured Rajendra Singh sustained seven injuries, out of which four injuries i.e. injury Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 were grievous in nature, whereas, injury Nos.3 and 5 were found to be simple in nature. Deceased- Jitendra Singh also sustained multiple injuries in four areas. In the post mortem report prepared by PBM Hospital, Bikaner dated 18.07.2020, the cause of death of the deceased has been mentioned as “in the opinion of medical board cause of death is loss of blood as a result of multiple crushed injuries present all over body as mentioned in the post mortem report are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner who is in custody since 28.02.2021 has been falsely implicated in the present case, owing to political rivalry between the parties. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the complainant, the petitioner inflicted injuries upon the deceased with axe whereas, investigating agency has recovered a lathi from him. Learned counsel further submitted that Dr. Ram Ratan, Medical Jurist, PBM Hospital has been examined before the competent criminal court as PW-3, wherein during cross examination, he admitted that the deceased neither sustained any injury with sharp weapon such as axe, spear (barrchi), etc. nor any injury was inflicted on vital body part. Learned counsel further submitted that as per Medical Jurist, the deceased suffered crushed injuries which could be caused to him by heavy stone or by running a vehicle over the hands or legs. Learned counsel further urged that the statements of the Medical Jurist are sufficient to indicate that this is a case of over implication and an exaggerated version of the incident has been given by the complainant. Learned counsel urged that as per the call detail location procured by the investigating agency at the time of incident, the location of the present petitioner was near Nokha, which is at a distance of about 20 kilometers from the place of incident, i.e. village Parwa. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that co-accused persons namely Ranjeet Singh, Rakesh Bhadu, Vinod Punia and Jagdish Ranawat have already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that co-accused persons namely Ranjeet Singh, Rakesh Bhadu, Vinod Punia and Jagdish Ranawat have already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court. It was also submitted that the statements of material witnesses have already been recorded, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period. On these grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner implored the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application for bail and submitted that the petitioner along with co-accused persons in a pre-planned manner brutally assaulted the deceased- Jitendra and complainant- injured Rajendra Singh. 4. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of eye witness of the incident namely, Rajendra Singh, Gauri Shankar, Sahi Ram, Poonam Das, Mukesh Das, Prahlad, Manoj, Vikram Singh, Mahendra, etc. recorded under Section 161 CrPC, learned counsel submitted that eye witnesses in their statements have clearly alleged that the present petitioner along with co-accused persons in a pre- determined manner brutally assaulted injured- Rajendra and the deceased, who succumbed to the injuries. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the injury report of the injured- Rajendra Singh clearly indicates that he sustained four grievous injuries at the hand of the petitioner and accused persons. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the complainant neither in the written report submitted to the police nor in his statements (PW-1) before competent criminal court has stated that the petitioner inflicted injuries upon deceased with sharp weapon. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that as a matter of fact, the complainant (PW-1) in his statements has deposed that the petitioner was holding an axe in his hand, using which he inflicted injuries upon the injured from the reverse side (butt) of the axe. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the complainant- injured was not present at the place of incident from the beginning, he only reached the spot on hearing his brother’s cries for help. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that post mortem report of the deceased- Jitendra Singh clearly indicates that he sustained multiple lacerated wounds and fracture injuries. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the complainant- injured was not present at the place of incident from the beginning, he only reached the spot on hearing his brother’s cries for help. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that post mortem report of the deceased- Jitendra Singh clearly indicates that he sustained multiple lacerated wounds and fracture injuries. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the argument with regard to cause of the death of deceased, according to post mortem report, suffice it to submit that the eye-witnesses have clearly alleged that the petitioner along with co-accused persons inflicted injuries upon the deceased, resulting in multiple lacerated wounds and fractures being suffered by the deceased, thus, the same is not tenable, especially when the trial against the petitioner is pending before competent criminal court. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that totality of the facts and circumstances of the case clearly indicate that the petitioner along with co-accused persons reached the spot, armed with lathis, axe, iron rods, etc. and has been charged under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 341, 323, 325, 427 IPC, therefore, at this stage, it would not be justified or safe for the court to consider the individual role of accused persons. 8. Countering the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that mobile location of the petitioner as per call detail location is about 20 kilometers away from the place of alleged incident. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in rural areas, call details and locations often overlap with each other due to lack of adequate number of mobile towers and poor connectivity. 9. Lastly, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the case of the petitioner is clearly distinguishable from co-accused persons who have been enlarged on bail as they were neither named in the FIR nor any specific role in commission of alleged crime was assigned to them by the eye-witnesses. 10. On these grounds, learned Public Prosecutor urged that the petitioner does not deserve concession of bail in the present case. 11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 12. This Court has been asked to weigh and appreciate the evidence as well as the prosecution story set up against the accused-petitioner, as is manifest from the contentions raised/arguments advanced by learned counsel for the accused-petitioner. 11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 12. This Court has been asked to weigh and appreciate the evidence as well as the prosecution story set up against the accused-petitioner, as is manifest from the contentions raised/arguments advanced by learned counsel for the accused-petitioner. This Court is restraining itself from recording any observation/finding since, it is conscious of the fact that the Court while adjudicating a bail application, cannot appreciate the evidence available on record in a manner, it will be dealt with by the competent criminal court and if the same is delved into, it would tantamount to a mini-trial. 13. This Court after carefully perusing the FIR, challan papers, statements of eye-witnesses recorded under Section 161 CrPC is of the prima facie opinion that the present case is not a case of no evidence against the accused- petitioner. A perusal of the statements of eye-witnesses under Section 161 CrPC, challan papers and contents of the FIR makes it apparent that there are serious allegations against the petitioner of inflicting four grievous injuries upon deceased- Jitendra and also upon injured- Rajendra Singh. 14. The accused- petitioner is charged for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 323, 341, 147, 148, 149, 427, 325 & 120-B of the IPC, therefore, the petitioner and co-accused persons are being prosecuted for above offences, with the allegation of brutally murdering one Jitendra Singh, brother of the complainant (injured) and severely injuring one Rajendra Singh. The petitioner and other co-accused persons thus, formed part of the unlawful assembly who were present at the place of incident and actively participated in the commission of the alleged offences. In view of Section 149 IPC, the individual role at this stage is not required to be considered. 15. In view of discussion made above, this Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, keeping in view the seriousness of accusations and brutality of alleged crime, so also the severity of punishment, is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Therefore, the instant application for bail is hereby rejected. 16. 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.” 17. Therefore, the instant application for bail is hereby rejected. 16. 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.” 17. Learned public prosecutor, at the outset, submitted that the petitioner is facing trial for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 323, 341, 147, 148, 149, 427, 325 and 120-B of the IPC. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that while deciding second bail application, all the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner have already been urged and rejected by this Court. Thus, without there being any change in the circumstances, this bail application is not maintainable. Learned Public Prosecutor thus implored the Court to reject the instant third bail application. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no bar for petitioner to make successive bail applications if the circumstances of the case have changed. Learned counsel submitted that after rejection of the second bail application by this Court, co-accused Prahalad Ram (S.B. Cri. Misc. 2nd bail Application No.16027/2023) has been enlarged on bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.02.2024. Learned counsel submitted that the coordinate bench, while granting bail to the co-accused–Prahalad Ram, has observed in its order that as per prosecution, co-accused Prahalad Ram had allegedly inflicted injuries upon the deceased with a barchhi. However, PW-2 Arvind Singh, during his cross-examination, admitted that no injury by a sharp edged weapon was found on the body of the deceased. PW-3 Dr. Ramratan also specifically mentioned that all the injuries found on the body of the deceased were by a blunt weapon. Further, material witnesses of the case Mukesh Das (PW-4), Manoj (PW-5), Sahi Ram (PW-6), Punam Das (PW-7), Prahalad (PW-8), Mahesh (PW-11) and Sharwan Kumar (PW-12) have not supported the prosecution story during their court statements and have turned hostile. 19. Learned counsel submitted that the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused person Prahalad who has already been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.02.2024. 20. 19. Learned counsel submitted that the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused person Prahalad who has already been enlarged on bail by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.02.2024. 20. Learned counsel further submitted that in the present case, though there is an allegation against the petitioner of inflicting injuries with an axe, however, the investigating agency has recovered a blunt weapon (lathi) from the present petitioner which is sufficient to indicate that the petitioner has not used any sharp edged weapon in the alleged incident. The recovery of the weapon (lathi) does not match with the allegation against the petitioner of using an axe for inflicting injuries upon the deceased. On the strength of these submissions, learned counsel prayed that the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity. 21. The order dated 14.02.2024 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.16027/2023 (Prahalad Ram v. State of Rajasthan) is reproduced herein below for ready reference: “The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.254/2020 of Police Station Nokha, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 341, 325, 323, 427, 147, 148, 149 IPC. He has preferred this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The first bail application was dismissed on 22.11.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that now material witnesses have been examined before the trial court and PW-1 Rajendra Singh has specifically stated that the present petitioner was having a barchi in his hand, which is a sharp edged weapon and he inflicted injury by the said barchi to the deceased. PW-2 Arvind Singh has admitted in his cross-examination that according to the postmortem report, no injury by a sharp edged weapon was found on the body of the deceased. PW-3 Dr. Ramratan also specifically mentioned that all the injuries are found to be caused to the deceased by a blunt weapon and not by a sharp edged weapon. Counsel further submits that the deceased had not received any injury on vital part of his body. All the witnesses namely Mukesh Das (PW-4), Manoj (PW-5), Sahi Ram (PW-6), Poonam Das (PW-7), Prahalad (PW-8), Mahesh (PW-11) & Sharwan Kumar (PW-12) have been declared hostile by the trial court. Counsel further submits that the deceased had not received any injury on vital part of his body. All the witnesses namely Mukesh Das (PW-4), Manoj (PW-5), Sahi Ram (PW-6), Poonam Das (PW-7), Prahalad (PW-8), Mahesh (PW-11) & Sharwan Kumar (PW-12) have been declared hostile by the trial court. The accused-petitioner is inside the jail since 22.07.2020 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 has opposed the second bail application. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the facts that the petitioner is inside the jail since 22.07.2020 and specific averment has been made by the witnesses that the present petitioner was having a barchi in his hand, but according to the postmoretn report, the injuries of the deceased are found to be caused by a blunt weapon, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the second bail application filed under Sec.439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Prahalad Ram S/o Banwari Lal shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.254/2020 of Police Station Nokha, provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.” 22. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record. 23. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail on the ground of parity is not palpable for the reason that this Court prima facie does not find any change in circumstances after the rejection of the second bail application. The second bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner was rejected by this Court taking into account the gravity of the offences and the complicity of the petitioner in the crime. The second bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner was rejected by this Court taking into account the gravity of the offences and the complicity of the petitioner in the crime. While deciding the second bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner, this Court has noticed that the alleged crime was committed in a premeditated manner by the petitioner and the co-accused persons. This Court has also noticed that the complainant Rajendra Singh (PW-1), in his court statements, has deposed that the petitioner was holding an axe in his hand, using which he inflicted injuries upon the injured from the reverse side (butt) of the axe. In the prima facie opinion of this court, since the injuries were inflicted upon the deceased from the reverse side (butt) of the axe, obviously no injury by a sharp edged weapon would be found on the body of the deceased. This Court, while rejecting second bail application, has also noticed that as per prosecution, the petitioner and co-accused brutally murdered the deceased Jitendra Singh and inflicted injuries upon one Rajendra Singh in a premeditated manner by forming an unlawful assembly and therefore, the individual role of the accused persons cannot be considered, at this stage. 24. For the aforesaid reasons and looking to the seriousness of accusations, nature and gravity of the offences allegedly committed by the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 25. Consequently, the third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejected. 26. 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.