ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. 1. The instant second bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. have been preferred claiming the following reliefs: S.B. Criminal Misc. IInd Bail Application No. 4158/2022: “It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may most graciously be pleased to accept and allow this bail application of the humble accused petitioner and may further be pleased to enlarge the accused petitioner on bail under Section 439 CrPC in FIR No. 49/2021 registered at PS Jhotwara, Jaipur on such terms and conditions as the Hon’ble Court may deem proper.” S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application 14847/2022 : “It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to- a) Accept and allow this 2nd bail application and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail Under Section 439 Crpc in FIR No. 49/2021 registered at PS Jhotwara, Jaipur West; OR b) Pas any other favourable order or relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the accused petitioner.” 2. The accused-petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.49/2021 registered at Police Station Jhotwara, Jaipur (West) for the offences under Sections 364-A, 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 3. As per the pleaded facts, on 15.01.2021, deceased Kamlesh Kudi was supposed to come back home on the occasion of certain festival, however as the deceased did not turn up till 5 o’clock in the evening, the father of the deceased made a phone call to him, which was picked up by one of the accused, namely, Ramful Mandiwal who threatened that the accused persons had abducted the deceased from Joshi Marg, Jhotwara, Jaipur and asked the deceased’s father to come at Murlipura alongwith a ransom amount of Rs.5 lakhs, failing which his son would be killed. 3.1. Thereafter, when calls were made on the phone of the deceased different persons picked it up and once again threats were made to bring the aforesaid amount otherwise the deceased would be killed; further, in the background, noises could be heard of the deceased yelling, whereafter immediately the family of the deceased reached Jhotwara Police Station and it came to their knowledge that their son had expired. Subsequently, the uncle of the deceased lodged the aforesaid FIR under the aforesaid charges against the petitioners and the other co-accused persons. Subsequently, the uncle of the deceased lodged the aforesaid FIR under the aforesaid charges against the petitioners and the other co-accused persons. Thereafter, the accused-petitioners-Rajesh & Sanjay moved bail applications before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan-II and learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, respectively, and the same came to be dismissed vide orders dated 30.04.2021 & 23.08.2022, respectively. 4. The first bail application of the petitioners bearing S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Applications No.7319/2021 & 9158/2021 were dismissed by this Court vide order dated 27.09.2021, as the evidence in the chargesheet did not indicate any reason so as to grant bail to the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the prosecution witnesses PW-1 to PW-13 have already been examined and they have turned hostile and do not support the prosecution’s version, thus, entitling the present petitioners for grant of bail. 6. As regards accused-petitioner, Sanjay in particular, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that while the accused was being taken to the Hospital the name of the accused-petitioner (Sanjay) was never mentioned before the Inspector Sh. Sandeep Yadav; in furtherance, from the statements of the witnesses, no enmity can be derived on part of the said accused-petitioner against the deceased. 6.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the pendrive submitted by the brother in law of the deceased pertaining to the conversations wherein neither petitioner (Sanjay) demanded any money nor his name came up during the conversation. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of such submissions, placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 3 SCC 22 (b) Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Ors. vs. State of Punjab (1980) 2SCC 565 (c) Siddharam Satlingappa Mehtre vs. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694 8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused-petitioner, submitted that the accused petitioners have been charged with the offences of extortion, abduction and murder of the deceased, and after due investigation, charge-sheet has been filed for the offences under Sections 147, 149, 364A, 302, 120B & 34 IPC, which being a heinous crime, bail should not be granted to the present accused-petitioners. 8.1. 8.1. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the investigation is already complete in the present matter and the chargesheet has been filed against the petitioners and the other co-accused under the aforesaid provisions of IPC, and that the statements recorded so far during the trial, do not indicate anything which could entitle the petitioners for grant of bail at this stage. 9. Heard learned counsel for both the parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar. 10. This Court finds that the petitioners were arrested in connection with the aforementioned FIR in relation the murder of Kamlesh Kudi. 11. This Court further finds that the learned Trial Court has recorded in the orders dated 30.04.2021 & 23.08.2022, while rejecting the bail application of the present petitioners that the charges levelled against the petitioners are of grave nature and from the available record the deceased had received multiple injuries on the body. 12. This Court finds that the accused-petitioners were involved in an offence of heinous nature i.e. murder and even the statements relied by the petitioners are not sufficient to support the case of the accused-petitioners, and therefore, at this juncture and looking into the nature of the offence as well as the material produced before this Court, the petitioners are not entitled to be enlarged on bail at this stage. 13. This Court further finds that the deceased was abducted in Vehicle bearing registration number RJ 23 CC 6966 and after recovery of the said vehicle by the concerned police authorities, they found blood on the seats thereof. This Court also finds that the clothes of accused-petitioner Sanjay were also stained with the blood. This Court further finds that one Jagdish Rolaniya also called the deceased when he came to know about abduction of the deceased, whereupon the said call was answered by one of the accused and he demanded the ransom amount; the said call was recorded in the mobile phone, and the pen drive containing the same is part of the charge-sheet so filed by the concerned investigating authority. 14. This Court also finds that as per the information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, two mobile phones of the deceased were recovered from the house of accused-petitioner Rajesh. 14. This Court also finds that as per the information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, two mobile phones of the deceased were recovered from the house of accused-petitioner Rajesh. This Court further finds that the other evidence i.e Call Record is also produced by the concerned police authority alongwith the charge-sheet with the certificate of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, looking into the said circumstance evidence, even if some of the witnesses have been declared hostile, the same, in the given circumstances, cannot entitle the petitioners for grant of bail at this stage. 15. Thus, looking into the nature of offence in question and having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, as also looking into the stage of the case against the present petitioners before the learned Trial Court, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the present petitioners at this stage. 16. Consequently, the present second bail applications are dismissed. However, observations, if any, made by this Court in the present order shall not affect the merits of the case during trial before the learned Trial Court.