The court held that there was sufficient evidence to connect the petitioners with the charges against them and that they were not entitled to bail.

S. C. MITAL, J.

( 1 ) THE above named petitioners have filed this bail application under Section 439, Cr. P. C. in Sessions Case No. 89/96 pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaur Camp Deedwana pertaining to F. I. R. No. 94 dated 14-9-1995, Police Station Khunkhuna under Sections 302, 364, 365, 176 and 201 I. P. C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge Camp Deedwana has rejected the bail application of the petitioners. The petitioners moved first bail application No. 481/96 along with other co-accused persons, which was allowed to be withdrawn on the request with liberty to file a fresh bail application after the receipt of copies of the statements.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 Misc. Petition No. 26/96 under Section 482, Cr. P. C. 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, Rewant Singh son of Dhan Singh Rajput resident of Koniyada and Chotu Khatu 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 p. m. 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, I. P. C. 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, I. P. C. and cognizance was taken against them. 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, Nagapur 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 charge-sheet without accompanying the documents under Section 173 (5), Cr. P. C. 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 that 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 petitioners