[2025:RJ-JP:34744] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5945/2025 Naveen Kumar S/o Shri Sartaj, R/o Bantawali Dhani, Tan Daulatsinghpura, Police Station Neemrana, District Kotputli- Behror, Raj. (Presently Confined In Central Jail At Alwar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Shandilya For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Mohit Balwada HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 29/08/2025 1. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.681/2023 registered at Police Station Neemrana, District Kotputli-Behror for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 365, 379 and 307 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 365, 379, 120B, 325, 367 and 307 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that similarly situated co-accused persons namely- Rajesh Kumar @ Rahul and Ankit @ Mafiya have already been granted benefit of bail by the co-ordinate bench of this court. It is submitted that injured namely- Raj has been examined during the course of trial. Counsel submits that petitioner himself sustained grievous injury in the said incident but his complaint was not taken up by the police authorities. Trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. [2025:RJ-JP:34744] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5945/2025] Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 13.12.2023 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that it is not a simple case of assault. It is submitted that petitioner is accused in a murder case and he is facing session trial in connection with FIR No.577/2019 registered at Police Station Neemrana, District Bhiwadi and complainant of this case is a witness in that case. Counsel submits that petitioner was extended benefit of interim bail for a period of one week in the aforementioned case on account of death of his grandmother however, he did not surrender after expiry of the said period and absconded. Counsel submits that petitioner remained absconding for 16 months and during this period, he brutally assaulted the complainant alongwith co-accused persons with an intention of preventing him from testifying in the murder case. Counsel submits that complainant sustained three fractures due to assault of the petitioner and co-accused persons. Counsel submits that somehow, petitioner could be arrested in both the cases only after 16 months. Counsel submits that vide order dated 31.07.2025, co-ordinate bench of this court has already refused to grant bail to the petitioner in the murder case. Counsel further submits that case of the petitioner is different from that of the co-accused persons therefore, he is not entitled to get benefit of bail. [2025:RJ-JP:34744] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5945/2025] 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration all the material available on record and the arguments put forward by both the parties, this Court is of the firm opinion that despite the co-accused getting benefit of bail, petitioner is not entitled to bail because after the expiry of period of interim bail, instead of surrendering, petitioner absconded and during the said period, he committed another offence by severely assaulting the witness and as such he has not only violated the conditions of bail but has also grossly misused the facility of bail therefore, conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him of the right to get any kind of relief from this court. So also the fact that co-ordinate bench of this court has already refused to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner in connection with FIR No.577/2019 in which he is facing trial for murder charge. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said witness has already been examined in both the cases. 8. In my considered opinion, conduct of the petitioner disentitles him for the relief sought in the present bail application and does not call for any indulgence from this Court thus, looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 9. Accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed. 10. The observations made hereinabove are only for disposal of the bail application and would not prejudice the trial in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /38