[2025:RJ-JP:21365] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 6622/2025 Dilip Bawariya S/o Shri Umrav, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Sundarwas, Police Station Akbarpura District Alwar (Raj.) (Petitioner Is In Judicial Custody In District Jail Kotputali). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 21/05/2025 1. This second bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.283/2024 registered at Police Station Kotputali, District Kotputali-Behror (Raj.) for offences punishable under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 05.03.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording the testimony of Investigating Officer who made arrest of the petitioner. Now, Investigating Officer of this case has been examined during the course of trial, thus this second bail application has been preferred. [2025:RJ-JP:21365] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-6622/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It appears from bare perusal of the FIR that FIR was lodged by the complainant only on the basis of suspicion against the petitioner and other persons. Counsel submits that it has clearly been admitted by the Investigating Officer that at the time of arrest of the petitioner, no documentary or last seen evidence was available with him. Counsel submits that entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. Counsel submits that it has been alleged that victim was strangulated with electric wires and same has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Counsel submits that except two pieces of electric wires, no other incriminating articles have been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and mere recovery of said electric wires is not enough to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since 19.05.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that it is evident from the record that two pieces of electric wires have been recovered at the instance of the petitioner. He submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as three other cases have been registered against him. Counsel further submits that according to the FSL report, both pieces are of same wire. 5. I have considered the contentions. [2025:RJ-JP:21365] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-6622/2025] 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, material made available on record in the form of charge- sheet including testimony of Investigating Officer who made arrest of the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Dilip Bawariya S/o Shri Umrav, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 8. 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 GAUTAM JAIN /80