[2025:RJ-JP:14711] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 4053/2025 Pulkit Yadav S/o Sh. Jaykishan Yadav, Aged About 26 Years, R/o House No. 733, Surajpura House, Sardul Singh Ki Naal, Chini Ki Burj, Chhoti Chopad, P/s Kotwali, Jaipur (West). At Present Plot No. 36 S, Block Ekta Nagar, Kishavpura Girdharipura, P/s Bhankrota, Jaipur. (At Present Petitioner Is Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Brahma Prakash For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 01/04/2025 1. Instant third bail application is preferred by petitioner- applicant Pulkit Yadav for seeking bail in a matter arising out of FIR No. 531/2024 dated 18.08.2024 registered at Police Station, Jhotwara, District Jaipur (West). First bail application No. 13521/2024 was dismissed on 10.12.2024 and second bail application No. 911/2025 was dismissed on 24.01.2025. Now, the third bail application is filed by applicant on the ground that complainant has submitted an affidavit to compromise the matter with present petitioner-applicant. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner-applicant while submitting a photocopy of compromise submits that the complainant has entered into a compromise with present applicant and criminal [2025:RJ-JP:14711] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-4053/2025] case does not survives thereafter. He also referred affidavit of complainant Hemendra Singh and submits that Hemendra Singh has also filed an affidavit before the Trial Court for compromise between the parties. He also submits that the trial will takes its own time and keeping the applicant behind the bars would serve no purpose. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that besides present case three other criminal cases were registered against the petitioner-applicant wherein police has already filed charge- sheet before the Trial Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for petitioner-applicant along with Public Prosecutor. Perused the entire material on record. 5. After registration of FIR No. 531/2024 on 18.08.2024 on complaint of Hemendra Singh, police has investigated the matter and after investigation has filed a charge-sheet against present petitioner and Yashvardhan Singh @ Yash Rathod under Sections 115(2), 140(3), 127(2), 331(4), 310(2), 61(2) and 351(2)(3) of B.N.S. After cognizance by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (Communal Riot Cases), Jaipur Metro-II on 06.01.2025, the matter was committed to learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metro. 6. Learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Jaipur Metro-II has considered third bail application of present petitioner on 15.03.2025 and after considering the grounds including compromise between the parties has dismissed the application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. 7. This Court has considered second bail application No. 3972/2025 filed by Yashvardhan Singh @ Yash Rathod and while [2025:RJ-JP:14711] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-4053/2025] dismissing the bail application on identical facts this Court has observed as under: 10. This petitioner accused is charged under Sections 115(2), 140(3), 127(2), 331(4), 310(2), 61(2) and 351(2)(3) of BNS out of which Sections 115(2), 127(2) and 351(2)(3) of BNS are compoundable under Section 359(1) of BNSS but offence under Sections 140(3), 331(4), 310(2) and 61(2) of BNS are not compoundable under the law. 11. The offence under Section 61(2) of BNS pertains to criminal conspiracy. Under Section 140(3) of BNS the maximum punishment is 7 years with fine. Under Section 310(2) of BNS the maximum punishment is for life or rigorous imprisonment of 10 years with fine and exclusively triable by court of session whereas under Section 331(4) of BNS the maximum punishment is imprisonment of 5 years with fine. 13. A criminal justice is not a tool at the whims of any party particularly in a case wherein serious offence is charged by police and proper compromise is not filed before the trial court therefore for purpose of bail, compromise does not inspire confidence and cannot be entertained. 8. A perusal of compromise clearly indicate that the compromise was executed on 12.03.2025 and same is not filed before the Trial Court for compounding offence under Section 115(2), 127(2) and 351(2)(3) of B.N.S. The compromise clearly indicate that the complainant was not identified by any counsel. Even before learned Additional Sessions Judge No.3, only affidavit of complainant Hemendra Singh was filed. 9. Having considered the reasons particularly the fact that the parties have compounded the case before the Trial Court and also that grievous offence were charged against the petitioner- applicant, who is having a criminal background, therefore, this is not a fit case wherein indulgence of bail can be granted only on the basis of affidavit and compromise. [2025:RJ-JP:14711] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-4053/2025] 10. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the third bail application preferred by petitioner-applicant Pulkit Yadav is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /03