[2025:RJ-JP:14752] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4th Bail Application No. 4040/2025 Naveeen S/o Verendra Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Kalyanpur, P.s. Sevar, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (at present in District Jail, Dausa). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 02/04/2025 1. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the second bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 05.12.2024 on the basis of the statements of two witnesses namely PW2- Pannalal and PW7-Balkesh. Counsel submits that thereafter, the indulgence of interim bail was granted to the petitioner for attending the marriage of his sister. Counsel submits that after being released on interim bail, the petitioner has not misused the liberty granted to him and he surrendered within the time prescribed by this Court. Counsel submits that as per the case of the prosecution there are 72 witnesses out of which the statements of only 22 witnesses have been recorded. Counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 01.09.2023. Counsel submits that speedy trial is a fundamental right of the petitioner, which has been violated in this case and therefore [2025:RJ-JP:14752] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-4040/2025] looking to the period of incarceration, indulgence of bail be granted to him. 2. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that twice bail applications of the petitioner have been rejected on merits on the basis of the gravity of the allegations levelled against him. Counsel submits that there in no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, which warrants grant of indulgence of bail to the petitioner, hence the bail application filed by the petitioner is liable to be rejected. 3. Considering the arguments raised by learned Public Prosecutor and looking to the gravity of offence levelled against the petitioner, twice bail applications of the petitioner were rejected and there is no material change in the facts and circumstances of the case, which warrants any interference of this Court to entertain this fourth bail application. 4. In view of the above, the fourth bail application stands rejected. 5. Looking to the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 01.09.2023, it is expected from the trial Court to make all the possible endeavor to speed up the trial and conclude the same expeditiously as early as possible. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/47