[2025:RJ-JP:35125] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4569/2025 Santosh @ Sanjay S/o Prabhudayal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Rasidpur, Police Station Mandawar, District Dausa. (At Present Petitioner Confined At District Jail Dausa). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Ratan Singh, Asi, Police Station Balahedi. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4570/2025 Smt Asha Devi W/o Late Ramdayal @ Ramu, R/o Saypur, Police Station Balahedi, District Dausa. (Accused Is Confined In District Jail Dausa). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Sharma Ms. Madhu Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Shriram Dhakad, PP Mr. Prem Bahadur, IO, Boli Mr. Rajendra, IO, Dholpur Mr. Jah Mejaram, SI Bejupada, Dausa HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 27/08/2025 1. These instant bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS have been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.12/2024 registered at Police Station Balahedi, District Dausa for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 302, 201 & 120B of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 323, 342, 109, 364 [2025:RJ-JP:35125] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4569/2025] & 120B of IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that no evidence is available on record against the petitioners. It is submitted that entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and no incriminating circumstance is appearing against the petitioners. Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner- Santosh @ Sanjay submits that till the date of arrest, no evidence was available against the petitioner and solely with the intention of implicating the petitioner in this case, recovery of dead body has been shown at his instance. Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner- Smt Asha Devi submits that petitioner has been charge-sheeted in this case on the basis of suspicion that she was having illicit relations with co-accused- Santosh @ Sanjay. It is submitted that co-accused namely- Umashankar Sharma and Rabinsingh @ Bhanu @ Bhalu have already been granted benefit of bail by this court. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submit that petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that deceased was lastly seen with petitioner- Santosh @ Sanjay thereafter, no one saw him alive and his dead body has also been recovered on the basis of information furnished by petitioner- Santosh @ Sanjay under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. It is submitted that [2025:RJ-JP:35125] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4569/2025] petitioners were in relationship from a long time. Earlier also petitioner- Asha Devi had gone with petitioner- Santosh @ Sanjay. Counsel submits that Investigating Agency has also collected evidence of several mobile conversations between them soon before and after the incident. Counsel submits that case of the present petitioners is different from the co-accused persons who have been granted benefit of bail by this court hence, petitioners should not be enlarged on bail. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, this Court is of the firm opinion that despite the other co-accused persons getting the benefit of bail, the petitioners are not entitled to get bail because their case is absolutely on different footing as noted above in the arguments advanced by learned State Counsel, as also considering the roles attributed to the petitioners as well as looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 6. Accordingly, these bail applications are dismissed. 7. The observations made hereinabove are only for disposal of the instant bail applications and would not prejudice the trial in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /297 & 298