[2025:RJ-JP:20643] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5776/2025 Paramjeet Singh S/o Late Shri Pappu Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Jaisamand Road, Liwari, Police Station Sadar, District Alwar. (Presently Confined At Central Jail Alwar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yash Prakash Yadav with Mr. Sushil Yadav For Respondent(s) For Complainant : : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP with Mr. Shubham Sain, AAAG Mr. Umesh Kumar Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 15/05/2025 1. The petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.387/2022 registered at Police Station Sadar (Alwar), Distt. Alwar for offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record. 3. As per the case of the prosecution, there exists an allegation against the petitioner of committing murder of Deepak and thereafter burning his body. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on the basis of confessional statement and pursuant to recovery, petitioner has been falsely involved in this case on concocted and [2025:RJ-JP:20643] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5776/2025] fabricated grounds. He further submits that though charge-sheet has been filed but out of 29 witnesses as mentioned in the list of witnesses, only 16 witnesses have been examined and there would be delay in trial which infringes right of speedy trial of the petitioner as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no cogent evidence which establishes essential ingredient of theory of `last seen’. There are serious discrepancies and material contradictions in the statement of the witnesses recorded during trial especially of PW14-Sangeeta and her father and mother, which creates reasonable doubt on the story set up by the prosecution. He further stated that most of the recoveries are from the public place having police witnesses. There is complete absence of motive to cause the alleged offence. Petitioner is hailing from Rajasthan itself and there is no chances of eloping from the criminal justice system. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment dated 21.9.2023 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and Anr. Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, (Criminal Appeal No.793- 794 of 2022). He further submits that at the time of incident, the petitioner was 18 years of young age and he is behind the bars since last three years, therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to the petitioner in the circumstances as narrated above. 5. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application and urged that in the present case, there is allegation of murder against the petitioner and trial is going on in which out of 29 witnesses, 16 [2025:RJ-JP:20643] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5776/2025] witnesses have been examined and there is no delay in trial. The trial is at the fag end. He further submits that as per the judicial principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2024 INSC 92, delay in trial cannot be taken as a ground to grant benefit of bail when there is grave charges. The bail application is liable to be rejected. 6. On consideration of rival submissions and material available on record and deliberating all the facts especially in view of the evidence recorded during trial including statements of PW12- Maya, PW-14 Sangeeta and others and further with the emphasis that at the stage of bail marshaling of the evidence is not legally warranted/permissible but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, I am not inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner. 7. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner not pertains to the stage of granting of bail during trial, therefore, is of no avail. 8. Consequently, the present bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J BMG/200