[2025:RJ-JP:20202] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 5529/2025 Pushpa Devi W/o Shri Bhupendra Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Khanpur, P.S. Bhusawar, District Bharatpur. (At Present Confined In Women’s Correctional Home, Bharatpur). ---Accused/Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankush Sharma, Adv. For State : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 13/05/2025 1. This second bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita has been filed, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.0297/2024 registered at Police Station Bhusawar, District Bharatpur for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, police filed charge- sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under sections 302, 120B and 34 of IPC. 2. First bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this court vide order dated 30.01.2025. Now, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that several witnesses have been examined during the course of trial including [2025:RJ-JP:20202] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5529/2025] complainant. Counsel submits that complainant has clearly admitted the fact that police forced him to make compromise in this matter and threatened him to implicate the petitioner in this case. Counsel submits that same statement has been given by 2-3 other witnesses. It is submitted that no evidence is available on record against the petitioner and entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and no incriminating circumstances are appearing against her. There are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. It is contended that petitioner is a female who is in custody since 25.06.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that petitioner is the key person, who forced the co-accused to commit murder of the deceased and according to the prosecution story, petitioner was having illicit relationship with co-accused and deceased was objecting to this illicit relationship. Counsel submits that it has also been observed by the Investigating Officer that deceased was making pressure on the petitioner to develop physical relationship with him therefore, petitioner forced the co- accused to murder the deceased which is evident from the calls made between the petitioner and co-accused Vikram Singh, with whom she was having illicit relationship. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by both the [2025:RJ-JP:20202] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5529/2025] parties, material made available on record, so also considering the fact that first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed on merits thereafter, second bail applications preferred by the co- accused persons have already been rejected by this Court vide order dated 15.04.2025 as there was no substantial change in circumstances, I am not inclined to extend indulgence of bail to the accused petitioner. 7. Consequently, the Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application is dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J AMIT/37