[2025:RJ-JP:17924] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 5553/2025 Jeevanram Jakhar S/o Hemant Kumar Jakhar, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Behind Sanwali Hospital, Dujod, Police Station Sadar Sikar, Tehsil And District Sikar. (At Present Confined In District Jail Sikar). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Asgar Khan with Mr. Junaid Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 29/04/2025 1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No.358/2023 registered at Police Station Udhog Nagar (Sikar), District Sikar for the offences under Sections 365 and 366 IPC. 2. Heard. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner is in custody since 26.10.2023 hence, he is in judicial custody for more than one and half years and till date only 5 prosecution witnesses out of total 33 witnesses have been examined by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel also submits that the accused-petitioner has been implicated in this case as an [2025:RJ-JP:17924] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5553/2025] accused only on the basis of alleged extra judicial confession. Learned counsel further submits that information recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which has already been disclosed cannot be read as an evidence for conviction of an accused. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application. 5. On perusal of the oral evidence recorded so far and the other material evidence collected during investigation, this Court finds that the allegation against the accused-petitioner is of committing murder of a lady who was said to have live with him as a wife after executing an agreement for marriage. On perusal of agreement for marriage, it has come out that the deceased was knowing well that the accused-petitioner was a married person having two child. 6. Learned counsel also submits that the deceased after having entered into an agreement for marriage used to remain away from the accused-petitioner on various occasions for long period and there may be possibility that she may be having some relations with the other persons. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and so also the fact that there is no direct evidence to connect the accused-petitioner with the alleged offence and he is in custody for more than one and half years and till date only 5 prosecution witnesses out of total 33 witnesses have been examined, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. [2025:RJ-JP:17924] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5553/2025] 8. Accordingly, this second bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner named above in connection with the aforesaid FIR shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- together with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /2