ORDER

Farjand Ali, J. - The present bail application(s) have been preferred on behalf of the accused petitioner(s) Bhim Saini @ Bhimraj Saini and Shubham @Golu, who are in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No.340/2021 registered at Police Station, Taleda District Bundi, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120- B and 364 of I.P.C.

2. Both bail applications have been moved separately bearing bail applications No. as 3255/2022 and 4091/2022 respectively.

3. Since, both the matters have germinated from the same F.I.R. and were tagged together therefore, it is deemed appropriate to decide the application(s) filed herewith, through a common order with the consent of the parties.

4. Bereft of the elaborated details, the facts necessary for the adjudication of the bail application(s) are that, on 23.09.2021 at about 18.15 hours the aforesaid FIR came to be registered at the instance of the complainant named Ramdev who is the father of the deceased Azad @ Pawan. The complainant stated that he is a resident of bundi, from last one and a half years his son started living in kota. On 22.09.2021, dead body of his son was observed in Barda of Jakhmund. It was apprehended by the complainant that some unknown persons after committing murder of his son, tied his dead body by Solid iron Chains(Janjheers) and drown it in the water of Jakhmund ka Barda. The Complainant, upon being informed had reached Bundi Hospital where the dead body of his son was kept in Morgue. He well identified his body and pointed out that some unknown accused persons had murdered his son.

5. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) opens his arguments and submits that the petitioners have not been named in the FIR and falsely been implicated in the matter. It was further argued by the learned counsels for the parties, that there is no eye witness to the incident and more so at the time of the alleged incident the petitioners were not even present at the place of occurrence.

6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the case of the complainant is squarely hinged upon the circumstantial evidence. More so, the available material on record also does not suggest the role and guilt of the petitioner for the said alleged incident.

7. Shri Arvind Gupta, learned senior counsel with Mr. Aniket Sharma and Mr. Anil Upman argued that merely on the statements of the co -accused in the interrogation note and call record with the accused persons, the accused petitioners have falsely been roped in the present matter, and as a matter of fact the chargesheet in the matter had already been filed before the court concerned which also suggest no role of the Petitioners in the case in hand; more so no purpose would be served by keeping the accused in the judicial custody in such a bleak chance of securing conviction against the accused petitioners; therefore, the accused petitioners should be given the benefit of bail and be enlarged on bail.

8. In Juxtaposition, Shri Ghanshyam Singh learned GA Cum AAG upon the direction of this court, had put in his appearance in the matter on behalf of the State, who had strongly opposed the bail application while imploring the attention of this court towards strong circumstantial events connecting the accused petitioners in the present matter.

9. Learned AAG at the very outset, placed heavy reliance over the motive of all the accused persons for committing murder of the deceased. As the accused petitioner Bhima and his family members were not pleased with the marriage of his sister Jiya with the deceased Azad @ Pawan, and for the reason, he along with the other accused person had conspired and committed the alleged act of murder.

10. Learned AAG points out the autopsy report which clearly suggests that the death of the deceased was homicidal due to ante mortem Strangulation; he drew attention of this court towards the statements of Smt. Rammurti recorded under 161 CrPC, who states the last location of th