[2025:RJ-JP:17000] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No. 3870/2025 Om Prakash Alias Omla S/o Ramjilal, R/o Ranoth, P.S. Tatarpur, P.S. District Bhiwari, Alwar (Raj.). (At Present Confined In Central Jail Alwar) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 3869/2025 Manish S/o Om Prakash, R/o Ranoth, Tehsil Mundawar, P.S. Tatarpur, District Alwar. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Alwar) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 22/04/2025 The present bail applications have been filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. (previously 439 Cr.P.C.). The petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.122/2020 registered at Police Station Tatarpur District Bhiwadi for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 302 and 120-B of IPC and later on for the offence under Sections 323, 341, 302, 324, 147, 148, and 149 of IPC. [2025:RJ-JP:17000] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3870/2025] The prayer for bail has been renewed on the ground of long incarceration. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that they are in custody since 10.09.2020 and 06.08.2020 respectively and out of total 27 prosecution witnesses, only 21 witnesses have been examined so far. He, therefore, prays for benefit of bail for the petitioners. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. Heard. Considered. The first bail application filed by the petitioners after submission of the charge-sheet was rejected by this Court vide order dated 07.01.2021 after appreciating the rival contentions raised by the learned counsels for the respective parties on its merit. The second bail application filed by the petitioner Om Prakash Alias Omla was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 04.09.2021. His third bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 12.07.2023 after appreciating the statement of the prosecution witnesses recorded by that time. However, in view of the fact that material prosecution witnesses were already examined by that time, learned trial Court was directed to expedite the trial of the case. The second bail application filed by the petitioner-Manish was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 08.02.2023 in following term(s): “However, looking to the length of custody of the petitioner, the learned trial Court is requested to expedite trial of the case.” [2025:RJ-JP:17000] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3870/2025] Indisputably, all the remaining prosecution witnesses who are yet to be examined are police personnel and as per order- sheets placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the are not turning up for their deposition since long. In view thereof, looking to the nature and gravity of the allegations against the petitioners, this Court, instead of extending them the benefit of bail on account of long incarceration, deems it just and proper to direct the concerned District Superintendent of Police to ensure presence of the remaining prosecution witnesses as and when required by learned trial Court for their deposition. It is clarified that any lapse will be viewed seriously. The learned trial Court is also requested to conclude the prosecution evidence at earliest. With the aforesaid directions, these bail applications are dismissed. The Registrar (Judl.) is directed to remit a copy of this order in the office of concerned Superintendent of Police as also to the jurisdictional trial Court for information and compliance. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J YOGESH/15-16