In a bail application, the court will consider the facts and circumstances of the case, including the nature of the charges, the strength of the evidence against the accused, and the likelihood of the accused absconding or tampering with evidence, before deciding whether to grant bail.

S.C. Mital, J.-The above named petitioners have filed this bail application Under Section 439, CrPC in Sessions Case No. 89/96 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur Camp Deedwana pertaining to FIR No. 94 dated 14-9-1995, Police Station Khunkhuna under Sections 302, 364, 365, 176 and 201 IPC The learned Additional Sessions Judge Camp Deedwana has rejected the bail application of the petitioners vide order dated 28-9-1996. The petitioners moved first hail application No. 48 1/96 along with other co-accused persons, which was allowed to be withdrawn on the request with liberty to file a fresh bail application after the receipt of copies of the statements. The second bail application No. 1068/96 was rejected on 9-9-1996 along with Miscellaneous Petition No. 26/96 Under Section 482, CrPC challenging the orders dated 25-3-1996 and 26-3-1996 taking cognizance by learned Judicial Magistrate, Deedwana. Now the petitioners have moved this third bail application.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Shri Sugan Singh son of Shri Bahadur Singh resident of village Badawara submitted a report on 14-9-1995 at Police Station, Khunkhuna that his son studying in 10th Class went to appear in supplementary examination from his village to Deedwana but he did not return. He made a search but could not find him and found his bag, books and shirt stained in blood on railway station, Chhotu Khatu. On inquiry Mahendra Singh son of Shri Mool Singh, Rewanl singh son of Dhan Singh Rjput resident of Koniyada and Chotu Khalu told him that Puranaram son of Chainaram, Prabhuram son of Shri Chainaram, Prakash son of Hadmanaram, Rajusingh son of Sumer Singh, Noratan son of Gunaram and Prakash son of Hadmanaram Naj resident of Badawara came in a jeep in the night at 10 PM on 28-8-1995 and kidnapped his son. Thus, all the above persons have committed murder of his son. A case Under Sections 365, 364 read with 147, IPC was registered and after completing the investigation a charge sheet was submitted on 12-3-1996 against the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 Chuna Ram and Ram Niwas Under Sections 147, 364, 365, 302, 201 and 120-B read with 149, IPC and cognizance was taken against them vide order dated 25-3-1996. Against other petitioners No. 3 to 7 charge sheet was submitted on 26-3-1996 and cognizance was taken against them on the same day. Now after commitment of the case, the trail is in progress in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur Camp Deedwana.

3. I have heard the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General

and also perused the record. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners in fact it is the first bail application because the earlier two bail applications were not argued and decided on merits. The first bail application was withdrawn by the petitioners and the second bail application was submitted on legal ground challenging the cognizance taken on incomplete chargesheet without accompanying the documents under Section 173(5), CrPC Though first two bail applications have been rejected, but the matter was not considered in those bail applications on the basis of the documents on merits. It is, therefore, argued that the petitioners may not be required to show that there, is any change in the facts and circumstances of the case after the rejection of previous two bail applications. Whereas learned Additional Advocate General has argued that the petitioners withdrew the first bail application because they knew hat their bail application could not be accepted on merits. All the documents were available at that time and, therefore, no new document or any circumstance has now come in favour of the petitioner. It is, therefore, contended that this bail application deserves to be dismissed only on this ground alone that after rejection of previous two bail applications there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. As already stated above, the petitioner