[2025:RJ-JP:17430] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 5139/2025 Vijay Singh Rawat @ Aakas Rawat S/o Late Shree Suwa Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Talai Hathi Khera, Foysagar Road, Police Station Ganj, Ajmer. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Dhakad, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 21/04/2025 1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.235/2023 registered at Police Station Ganj, District Ajmer (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B & 307 of IPC. Later on, police filed charge- sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 307 of IPC. 2. First bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording the testimony of three eye-witnesses namely Kumari Sandhya, Kumari Shreshtha Rawat & Chandrakanta. Now these witnesses have been examined during the course of trial. Thus, this second bail application has been preferred. [2025:RJ-JP:17430] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5139/2025] 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that petitioner is the father of the deceased child and there was no motive for the petitioner to kill his own children. It is argued that children fell down in the pond accidentally but the wife of the petitioner, who is not having cordial matrimonial relations, unnecessary roped the petitioner in this case. It is submitted that petitioner is insane person and he is not mentally fit. Petitioner is in custody since 07.07.2023 and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. It is thus prayed that the bail application may be accepted. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application. He submits that the petitioner who was having marital strife with his wife, intentionally threw his two children namely Sandhya and Harsh in a pond. Sandhya somehow saved her life but Harsh lost his life. He submits that the petitioner also tried to push his other daughter namely Shrestha in the same pond but she ran away from there and told about this incident to her family members. He submits that Sandhya and Shrestha have been examined during the course of trial wherein they supported the prosecution case. Lastly, he argues that looking to the nature of allegation and gravity of the offence, petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced at bar; material made available on record in the form of charge-sheet and the Court testimony of both child witnesses; looking to the nature of [2025:RJ-JP:17430] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5139/2025] offence and seriousness of allegations, I am not inclined to accept this bail application. 6. Accordingly, this second bail application stands dismissed. Observations made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /38