[2025:RJ-JP:18789] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 5777/2025 Lakharam S/o Sh. Aunkarmal, Aged About 71 Years, R/o Kishanpura, Police Station Neem Ka Thana Sadar, Distt. Neem Ka Thana. (Raj.) (Presently Confined In Distt. Jail, Neem Ka Thana). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Dhakad, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 05/05/2025 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.93/2024 registered at Police Station Neem Ka Thana Sadar, District Neem Ka Thana (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 447, 307, 302 & 336 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 307, 302 & 336 of IPC. 2. First bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 12.12.2024 with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording testimony of injured witnesses namely- Munni Devi, Sunita Devi & Kamla Devi. Now, all three [2025:RJ-JP:18789] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5777/2025] injured witnesses have been examined during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that there is land dispute between the parties and complainant party was the aggressor. It is submitted that cross-cases have been registered between the parties. It appears from the testimony of the injured witnesses that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner of causing injury on the person of the deceased. Counsel submits that a sharp edged weapon (dantli) has been shown to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner but no blood stain was found on the said weapon (dantli). It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner who is aged about 71 years is in custody since 28.02.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application. He submits that it appears from the testimony of the injured witnesses that petitioner has actively participated in commission of crime. Counsel submits that it is a case of double murder and according to the post-mortem report, incised wounds have been found on the person of both the deceased. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor, material made available on record in the form of charge-sheet including testimony of the injured witnesses, as also considering the role [2025:RJ-JP:18789] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5777/2025] attributed to the petitioner and the fact that two persons have lost their life thus, looking to the nature and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous second bail application stands dismissed. 7. 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 LALIT MOHAN /39