Order : VINIT KUMAR MATHUR, J. S.B. Criminal Misc. 2 nd Bail Application No. 2221/2024 :- 1.The present second bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.95/2020, Police Station Chakhu, District Jodhpur (Rural) for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 427, 342, 323, 324, 325, 326 and 440/120B of the IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that after rejection of the first bail application of the petitioner on 19.01.2022, the statement of eye witness namely Jagdishdan has been recorded before the learned trial Court as PW-9. He further submits that as per the statement of material prosecution eye witness namely Jagdishdan (PW-9), Prabhudan (PW-5), Bheemdan(PW-8), there is inconsistency with the weapon with which the petitioner has inflicted the injuries to the deceased persons. 4. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that there is material alteration and improvement in their statements from the statements which were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also submits that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for more than four years and out of 35 witnesses, testimony of only 09 witnesses has been examined so far. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the material eye witnesses in the case has already been examined and therefore, no purpose will be served in keeping the petitioner behind the bar. 5. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that as per the testimony of all the eye witnesses, the injuries assigned to the petitioner are by sharp weapon, whereas, the recovery is of lathi from the petitioner. He further submits that there are cross-cases between the two parties, in which the FIR filed by the petitioner’s side, the complainant has been charge-sheeted. He, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor & learned counsel for the complainant oppose the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and submit that as per all the eye witnesses, specific injuries have been assigned to the present petitioner which were fatal in nature and ultimately two persons namely Laxmandan and Maghadan have succumbed to the injuries sustained in the incident. Learned counsel further submit that minor improvements of inflicting the injuries through the weapon as mentioned in the statements of eye witnesses will not be sufficient to reach to the conclusion that the petitioner was not involved in the present incident. They further submit that as per the eye witnesses, the presence and attribution of the injuries on the petitioner is writ large in the present case. They, therefore, pray that the present bail application preferred by the petitioner may be dismissed. 7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case. 8. The eye witnesses namely Prabhudan (PW-5), Bheemdan (PW-8) & Jagdishdan (PW-9) have very categorically stated in their statements that the petitioner- Bhanwardan has inflicted multiple injuries to deceased Laxmandan and Maghadan and ultimately the two persons who have sustained injuries in the incident have died. A perusal of the postmortem report also shows that multiple injuries have been sustained by the deceased Laxmandan and Maghadan. As per the statements of the two eye witnesses, the injuries have been sustained by the deceased persons on the same place. 9. Taking into consideration the statements of the eye witnesses coupled with the fact that the postmortem report corroborates the same, this Court is not inclined to grant bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner at this stage. 10. Accordingly, the present second bail application preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed. 11. Although, the bail application has been dismissed, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for last more than four years and testimony of only 09 witnesses has been examined so far, therefore, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial proceedings by calling the prosecution witnesses and examining them by not giving a date of more than 15 days. S.B. Criminal Misc. 2 nd Bail Application No. 1780/2025 :- 12. The present second bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS (Old Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.95/2020, Police Station Chakhu, District Jodhpur (Rural) for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 427, 342, 323/149, or 323/149, 324 or 324/149, 325 or 325/149, 326 or 326/149, 440 or 440/149, 307 or 307/149, 302 or 302/149 of IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. 13. 13. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. 14. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after rejection of the first bail application of the petitioner on 15.07.2024, the statement of eye witness namely Jagdishdan has been recorded before the learned trial Court as PW-9. He further submits that as per the statement of material prosecution eye witness namely Jagdishdan (PW-9), Prabhudan (PW-5), Bheemdan(PW-8), there is inconsistency with the weapon with which the petitioner has inflicted the injuries to the deceased persons. 15. Learned Counsel further submits that there is material alteration and improvement in their statements from the statements which were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also submits that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for more than four years and out of 35 witnesses, testimony of only 09 witnesses has been examined so far. Learned Counsel further submits that the material eye witnesses in the case have already been examined and therefore, no purpose will be served in keeping the petitioner behind the bar. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there are cross-cases between the two parties, in which the FIR filed by the petitioner’s side, the complainant has been charge-sheeted. He, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 17. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor & learned counsel for the complainant oppose the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and submit that as per all the eye witnesses, specific injuries have been assigned to the present petitioner which were fatal in nature and ultimately two persons namely Laxmandan and Maghadan have succumbed to the injuries sustained in the incident. Learned counsel further submit that minor improvements of inflicting the injuries through the weapon as mentioned in the statements of eye witnesses will not be sufficient to reach to the conclusion that the petitioner was not involved in the present incident. They further submit that as per the eye witnesses, the presence and attribution of the injuries on the petitioner is writ large in the present case. They, therefore, pray that the present bail application preferred by the petitioner may be dismissed. 18. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case. 19. They, therefore, pray that the present bail application preferred by the petitioner may be dismissed. 18. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant record of the case. 19. The eye witnesses namely Prabhudan (PW-5), Bheemdan (PW-8) & Jagdishdan (PW-9) have very categorically stated in their statements that the petitioner- Bhanwardan has inflicted multiple injuries to deceased Laxmandan and Maghadan and ultimately the two persons who have sustained injuries in the incident have died. A perusal of the postmortem report also shows that multiple injuries have been sustained by the deceased Laxmandan and Maghadan. As per the statements of the two eye witnesses, the injuries have been sustained by the deceased persons on the same place. 20. Taking into consideration the statements of the eye witnesses coupled with the fact that the postmortem report corroborates the same, this Court is not inclined to grant bail under Section 483 BNSS (Old Section 439 Cr.P.C.) to the petitioner at this stage. 21. Accordingly, the present second bail application preferred by the petitioner under Section 483 BNSS (Old Section 439 Cr.P.C.) is dismissed. 22. Although, the bail application has been dismissed, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for last more than four years and testimony of only 09 witnesses has been examined so far, therefore, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial proceedings by calling the prosecution witnesses and examining them by not giving a date of more than 15 days.