This second bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Pushpendra Singh submitted a report on 7.3.2015 at Police Station Halena, District Bharatpur, on the basis of which an FIR No. 48/2015 came to be registered for the offence under sections 143, 323, 341, 354, 379 IPC. During the course of investigation the accused petitioner was arrested. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet before the jurisdictional court for the offence under sections 323, 341, 307 and 34 IPC on 22.12.2015. Thereafter, the accused petitioner moved bail application before the learned court below which was dismissed vide order dated 8.1.2016. Against the aforesaid order, the accused petitioner moved bail application before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 4.2.2016 with the liberty to the accused petitioner to move bail application before the learned court below after recording the statements of the material witnesses.

The accused petitioner without approaching to the learned court below directly moved this second bail application before this Court.

Before starting arguments, this Court asked a question from Mr. Mahendra Gaur Advocate that why the accused petitioner did not move bail application before the trial court after recording the statements of the material witnesses and directly approached this Court, which is clear from the order dated 4.2.2016 then he replied that it is not necessary for the accused petitioner to move bail application before the court below after recording the statements of the material witnesses and the accused petitioner can directly move the bail application before this Court.

In addition to the above reply, counsel appearing for the accused petitioner has contended that the principle of res-judicata is not applicable in the bail application. Counsel has further submitted that words 'material witnesses' have not been defined either in law books or in any judicial judgment. Counsel also submitted that co-accused Jal Singh @ Jallo, Narendra Singh and Hemant Kumar has been released on anticipatory bail by this Court on 8.10.2015 and the case of the present accused petitioner stands on better footings. Counsel has further submitted that the accused petitioner is an innocent person as he has nothing to do with the alleged incident. Counsel has further submitted that the accused petitioner is in judicial custody since 9.12.2015, trial of the case is likely to take considerable time and no purpose will be served in keeping him behind the Bar. Thus, the accused petitioner be released on bail under section 439 Cr.P.C.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submitted that during the course of investigation the police recorded the statement of injured-Sahab Singh under section 161 Cr.P.C from which it is specifically clear that the accused petitioner inflicted lathi blow on the head of injured Sahab Singh. Learned PP has further submitted that as per the injury report of injured Sahab Singh, injury No. 2 which was inflicted by the accused petitioner on the head of injured Sahab Singh is dangerous to life. Learned PP has further submitted that the accused petitioner is the principal accused and there is no change in the circumstances after rejection of the first bail application of the accused petitioner. Learned PP has further submitted that the accused petitioner is such type of notorious person who ran away from the police station in a case relating to attempt to murder and in this regard a charge-sheet was submitted by the SHO of Police Station Halena in the Court of learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Weir. Thus, the bail application filed by the accused petitioner be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the accused petitioner and learned PP for the State and carefully scanned the entire material made available to me.

From the order dated 4.2.2016 passed by this Court it is crysta