[2025:RJ-JP:31429] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6677/2025 Himmat Singh S/o Girdhari Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Deenwaladkhani, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Sikar (Raj.) (At Present In District Jail, Sikar). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, Public Prosecutor. Mr. Ghanshyam Singh Rathore, Adv. With Kirtivardhan Singh Rathore, Adv. Mr. Gajraj Singh Rajawat, Adv. Mr. Yash Vardhan Singh Bhati, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order Reserved on -::- 08/08/2025 Pronounced on -::- 13 /08/2025 1. The present criminal misc. bail application has been preferred under Section 483 B.N.S.S. on behalf of the accused- petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.01/2025, registered at Police Station Fatehpur Sadar, District Sikar for the offence under Sections 189(2) and 103(1) of B.N.S. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the main allegation of causing the death of deceased Gopal Singh is against other co-accused. It is further contended that the present petitioner has been made accused solely based on the co-accused Satyendra Singh that who was in contact with the petitioner and [2025:RJ-JP:31429] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-6677/2025] the petitioner has facilitated his tampered vehicle for the offence. It is argued that the petitioner has been in custody for a long time and the trial of the case may take considerable time. The Coordinate Bench in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3554/2025 (Hardev @ Neta Vs. State of Rajasthan) in connection with F.I.R. No.715/2022, registered at Police Station Kumher, District Bharatpur, granted the bail to the accused Hardev alias Neta because the petitioner’s presence was not found at the place of occurrence, therefore, the petitioner’s bail application may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. It is contended by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing for the complainant that the petitioner was in continuous contact with the co-accused Satyendra Singh, Jeevraj Singh, Tony Gurjar and Amit Jat. The call details collected show that before the incident and after committing the offence, the petitioner was in contact with the other co-accused. The investigation has also revealed that the vehicle used in the commission of the offence belongs to the petitioner. The petitioner has also provided shelter to the co-accused after the commission of the offence, therefore, considering the above conclusion drawn by the Investigating Agency, the bail application of the accused- petitioner deserves dismissal. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. The prosecution story alleges that co-accused Satyendra Singh, Nahar Singh, Jeevraj Singh, Monu and Devdutt after forming an unlawful assembly, assaulted the deceased Gopal [2025:RJ-JP:31429] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-6677/2025] Singh with weapons. The vehicle used in the commission of the offence was that of the petitioner. The investigation revealed that on 01.01.2025, the co-accused Satyendra Singh was in contact with the petitioner-Himmat Singh and called him several times. The evidence has also revealed that the petitioner was watching the entire incident on his iPhone which was connected to his CCTV Camera. Investigation also revealed that after commission of the offence, the petitioner remained in contact with the co-accused Satyendra Singh, Amit Jat, Tony Gurjar and Himmat Singh. The Police have collected the call details of the petitioner and other co- accused. The charge-sheet against the petitioner has already been submitted and the matter is under trial. The Investigation Officer and the persons who analysed the petitioner’s call details with the other co-accused are yet to be examined. The offence alleged against the petitioner is grave though the petitioner was not directly involved in the incident but the evidence shows that the petitioner remained in contact before the incident and after the commission of the offence with the co-accused. 6. Therefore, considering the above facts, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. The bail application of the accused-petitioner, is hereby, dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR), J Ramesh Vaishnav/86 28