Order : (KULDEEP MATHUR, J.) This second application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.180/2024 registered at Police Station Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Jodhpur City West, for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of IPC. 2. As per the prosecution, the complainant– Heerpuri submitted a written report at Police Station Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, district Jodhpur stating inter-alia that on 29.06.2024 at 10:00 pm., when he went upstairs to sleep, he found that his son was not at home. He then started searching for him. The next morning, at 07:30 am., the dead body of his son was found near Bheel Keru Phanta, Jaisalmer Highway wrapped up in a sack and certain injury marks on his neck and other body parts were also visible. The complainant thus suspected that the dead body of his son was thrown on the road to make it look like an accident after murdering him. 3. On the basis of aforementioned report, the above mentioned FIR came to be registered and pursuant to which, the investigating agency during the course of the investigation, arrested the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC. The investigating agency on 29.05.2024, submitted the challan under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the competent criminal Court. 4. A perusal of the chargesheet reveals that as per the prosecution, the son of the complainant- Chetanpuri aged about 16 years was studying in class 10 th with Mst. ‘M’ aged about 15 years, who is the daughter of petitioner No.1 and grand daughter of petitioner No.2. The deceased and Mst. ‘M’ started liking each other and also developed physical relationship. On 29.06.2024 i.e. on the date of alleged incident, deceased came to the house of Mst. ‘M’ in the midnight and when he was leaving the house, the brother of Mst. ‘M’ saw him and shouted chor chor. Upon hearing the shouts, other family members also woke up. The deceased in the meantime, ran out of the house and came in contact with the electric fence put up by petitioners to protect their agricultural field from grazing animals. The petitioners went behind him and found that the deceased had gotten entangled with the wires carrying electricity. 5. Upon hearing the shouts, other family members also woke up. The deceased in the meantime, ran out of the house and came in contact with the electric fence put up by petitioners to protect their agricultural field from grazing animals. The petitioners went behind him and found that the deceased had gotten entangled with the wires carrying electricity. 5. As per the chargesheet dated 29.05.2024, submitted by the Investigating Agency the petitioner No.1, who was furious due to possibility of his reputation getting tarnished in the society and the village due to the relationship of the deceased with his daughter, upon finding the deceased unconscious, killed him by electrocuting him. The petitioners after committing the alleged crime took the dead body of the deceased on their motorcycle and threw it near Bheel Keru Phanta, Jaisalmer Highway. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that there is no eye-witness of the alleged incident and the petitioners have been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of suspicion and the statements of Mst. ‘M’ recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (180 B.N.S.S.). Learned counsel submitted that the statements of Mst. ‘M’ have already been recorded before the competent criminal Court as PW.1 wherein she has not supported the prosecution story and has turned hostile. 7. Drawing attention of the Court towards the challan papers and the statements of the witnesses Kojaram, Nemaram, Shrawan Kumar and Bhawani Kachhawaha recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (180 B.N.S.S.), learned counsel submitted that sufficient material is available on record to indicate that on the date of the alleged incident while running from the house of the petitioners, the deceased Chetanpuri came in contact with the electric fence, put by them to protect their agricultural field from the grazing animals and died due to accidental electrocution. 8. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioners. 9. 8. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioners are in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioners. 9. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.Drawing attention of the Court towards the challan papers, learned counsel for the complainant contended that it is highly improbable that any person could die due to coming in contact with the electric fence put by the petitioners on their agricultural field. Learned counsel submitted that the evidence available on record and the postmortem report of the deceased clearly indicates that this is not the case of electrical accident but a case wherein a young boy has been killed by giving him electric shocks. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the death of the complainant’s son was accidental and not intentional deserves to be rejected straightaway. On these grounds learned counsel implored the Court to reject the bail application filed by the petitioners. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record. 11. The relevant portion of opinion dated 30.06.2024 given by the Medical Board at MDM Hospital, Jodhpur as per the postmortem report prepared by them reads as under:- “We the Members of Medical board are of the opinion that Cause of death of Chetan s/o Heerpuri is electrocution which is Sufficient to cause death... ” 12. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the entire case of the prosecution hinges upon circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness of the present case. It is evident from the perusal of the record of the case that the son of the complainant- Chetanpuri, who was aged about 15 year, lost his life due to electrocution. The material and evidence available on record prima facie indicates that on the date of the alleged incident, the deceased went to meet Mst ‘M’ at her residence and when the brother of Mst ‘M’ saw him, he ran out of the house. 13. The material and evidence available on record prima facie indicates that on the date of the alleged incident, the deceased went to meet Mst ‘M’ at her residence and when the brother of Mst ‘M’ saw him, he ran out of the house. 13. This Court, from the perusal of the challan papers, prima facie finds that while running away from the complainant’s house, the deceased came in contact with the electric fence and fell unconscious whereupon, he was given electric shocks by the petitioners by connecting the electric wires with the electric pole standing nearby. 14. This Court prima facie finds that though there is no eye-witness of the alleged incident and Mst ‘M’ (PW.1) during her statements recorded during the course of trial has not supported the prosecution story and has turned hostile but the recoveries made by the Investigating Agency pursuant to the information divulged by the petitioner No.2 under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, indicating the manner in which the dead body was taken away from the place of occurrence, as well as the postmortem report of the deceased prima facie establish his motive and his involvement in commission of the alleged crime. 15. As far as the petitioner No.1 who is aged about 66 years is concerned, this Court prima facie finds that at this stage, the case of petitioner no. 1 is distinguishable from the case of the petitioner no. 2 as he has been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the statements and information divulged by the petitioner No.1 while he was in judicial custody and no recovery has been made at his instance. The recovery of the shoes of the deceased which were not found at the place of the incident has also been made from the kitchen of the house of the petitioner no. 1 on the basis of an information divulged by him under section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is also pertinent to note here that similarly the marking of place where the mobile of the deceased was disposed of has also been made at the instance of the petitioner no. 1 on the basis of an information divulge by him. 15. Manifestly, from the face of the record, though the presence of the petitioner no. It is also pertinent to note here that similarly the marking of place where the mobile of the deceased was disposed of has also been made at the instance of the petitioner no. 1 on the basis of an information divulge by him. 15. Manifestly, from the face of the record, though the presence of the petitioner no. 2 at the place of incident cannot be ruled out at this stage however prima facie, apart from the information divulged by the petitioner no. 1, in absence of any direct or indirect evidence available against him, this Court finds it appropriate to extend the benefit of bail to the petitioner no.2. 16. Further, this Court also finds that the petitioner No.2 is in judicial custody and the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have not shown any apprehension of petitioner No.2 influencing the material prosecution witnesses of the case or tampering with the evidence or fleeing away from justice, in case, he is enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner No.2- Omprakash @ Oma Ram S/o Bhikha Ram on bail. 17. Consequently, the second bail application under Section 483 BNSS is partly allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner No.2 Omprakash @ Oma Ram S/o Bhikha Ram, arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.180/2024 registered at Police Station Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Jodhpur City West, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for their appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial. 18. This second bail application moved on behalf of petitioner No.1 Ashok S/o Omprakash @ Oma Ram is rejected. However, he shall be at liberty to file a fresh bail application after recording the statements of the Investigating Officer as well as the medical jurists who conducted the post mortem of the deceased Chetanpuri, before the competent criminal Court. It is expected from the learned trial Court that the statements of the Investigating officer as well as the medical jurists who conducted the post mortem of the deceased Chetanpuri will be recorded on priority basis. 19. It is expected from the learned trial Court that the statements of the Investigating officer as well as the medical jurists who conducted the post mortem of the deceased Chetanpuri will be recorded on priority basis. 19. 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.