[2025:RJ-JP:25575] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 5274/2025 Tulsidas S/o Shri Jagdish Tiwari, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Para, Post Kunehata, Police Station Bivaar, District Hamirpur (Uttar Pradesh) At Present Resident Of Vipin Naagar Ki Factory, Pani Plant Ke Pichhe, Tiwari Nagar, Madrampura, Police Station Muhana, District Jaipur. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohd. Umar Farooq For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 11/07/2025 1. This third bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.956/2022 registered at Police Station Muhana, District Jaipur City South (Raj.) for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 341, 143 & 504 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 323, 341, 504, 302, 201, 307 & 325 of IPC. 2. The first and second bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioner were dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 04.07.2023 & 02.01.2024 respectively, with liberty to file fresh bail application after recording the testimony of injured [2025:RJ-JP:25575] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5274/2025] persons namely Arun Sharma, Ashok Sharma & Rama Sharma @ Raja Sharma. Now, two witnesses namely Arun Sharma and Ashok Sharma have been examined during the course of trial, thus this third bail application has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that two witnesses namely Arun Sharma and Ashok Sharma have been examined during the course of trial but third witness namely Rama Sharma @ Raja Sharma is not turning up before the learned trial court for recording his testimony. It appears from the testimony of aforementioned two witnesses that alleged incident took place on the spur of moment. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as till date only two witnesses have been examined out of 27 cited prosecution witnesses. There are bleak chances of culmination of trial in near future. Petitioner is in custody since his date of arrest and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that there is serious allegation against the petitioner of causing head injury on the person of the deceased and same has been corroborated by the two injured witnesses. He further submits that the other witness is still confined to bed on account of head injury caused by the petitioner due to which he is not able to come forward for recording his testimony. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, as [2025:RJ-JP:25575] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5274/2025] also considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet including testimony of two injured witnesses and role attributed to the petitioner and the fact that other witness is still confined to bed on account of injury caused by the petitioner; looking to the gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, this third bail application is dismissed. 7. However, considering the period of incarceration, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial at earliest. It is also expected from the Court concerned that unnecessary adjournments on casual grounds may not be given and proceedings would be conducted on day-to-day basis. 8. The 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 GAUTAM JAIN /28