[2025:RJ-JP:17416] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 5298/2025 Biramchand S/o Gyarshiram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Sorati, Police Station Jawar, District Jhalawar, Raj. (Presently Confined In District Jail At Baran). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 5333/2025 1. Lalita Bai W/o Gyarsiram, R/o Lhas, Police Station Ghatoli, District Jhalawar, Raj. (Accused Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail Chhabra, District Baran). 2. Chamelibai W/o Mangilal, R/o Sorti, Police Station Jawar, District Jhalawar. (Accused Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail Chhabra, District Baran). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Tanwar Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Dhakad, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 23/04/2025 1. These second bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.113/2024 registered at Police Station Harnawada Shahji, District Baran for the offence punishable under [2025:RJ-JP:17416] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5298/2025] Section 140(3) of BNS. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 238(a), 191(2), 190 & 61(2)(a) of BNS. 2. Vide order dated 30.01.2025, previous bail applications of the petitioners were dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording testimonies of prosecution witnesses, namely, Ravindra Kumar, Adesh and Dileep. Court statements of these three witnesses have been recorded during trial. Hence, these second bail applications have been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that so-called eyewitness, namely, Adesh (PW-3) has not supported the prosecution case and he has been declared hostile. The petitioners Lalita Bai and Chameli Bai are females. The petitioner are in custody since long. Trial of the case will take considerable time it its conclusion as till date, only three witnesses have been examined. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars for an indefinite time period. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. It is submitted that as per prosecution case, a newly married girl was murdered by none other but her family members including petitioners in the name of so-called prestige and social reputation. The deceased Smt. Shimla was in love affair with the complainant Ravindra Kumar. Both got married against wishes of family members of deceased and they were living together as husband and wife but petitioners along with other co-accused persons who were close family members of the deceased gave beatings to her and murdered her and thereafter, [2025:RJ-JP:17416] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5298/2025] in order to conceal evidence, attempted to cremate the dead body, however, half-burnt dead body was recovered by the police. He argues that eyewitness PW-2 Dileep Kumar, brother-in-law of deceased Shimla has supported the prosecution case. He, in his court testimony clearly alleged that the accused petitioners along with other accused persons gave beatings to the deceased and after her death, in order to conceal evidence, her dead body was taken to cremation ground (crematorium). 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar; material made available before me in the form of charge-sheet and court testimony of PW.3 Dileep as also looking to the gravity of offences and nature of allegations attributed to the accused petitioners that deceased Smt. Shimla was murdered by her family members as they were unhappy with her love marriage with Ravindra, this Court is not persuaded to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, these bail applications are dismissed. 7. Observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the bail applications and would not prejudice trial in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /74-75