[2025:RJ-JP:21744] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 6784/2025 Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Gajendra Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Barso, Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Bharatpur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aniket Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 23/05/2025 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.137/2024 registered at Police Station Lakhanpur, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B & 34 of IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.01.2025 while giving liberty to the petitioner to renew the prayer of bail after recording testimony of the Investigating Officer as entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. 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:21744] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-6784/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that no evidence is available on record against the petitioner to connect him with the alleged offence. Counsel submits that it is evident from the testimony of the Investigating Officer that petitioner has been arrested in this case solely on the basis of police interrogation of co-accused namely- Radheylal. It is submitted that alleged weapon (country made pistol) has been recovered at the instance of co-accused namely- Manoj. It is submitted that mere recovery of live cartridges from the possession of the petitioner is not enough to connect him with the alleged offence. Counsel submits that admittedly, petitioner was not present at the place of alleged incident. It is submitted that as far as recovery of mobile phone of the deceased from the possession of the petitioner is concerned, it is evident from the testimony of the Investigating Officer that neither family members of the deceased were asked to identify the mobile phone nor mobile phone was not sent to FSL. Counsel submits that prosecution failed to establish that recovery of the alleged mobile phone shown to be made from the possession of the petitioner belonged to the deceased. Counsel further submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since 07.06.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer of bail made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have considered the contentions. [2025:RJ-JP:21744] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-6784/2025] 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the material made available on record in the form of charge-sheet including testimony of Investigating Officer, as also considering the fact that entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, there are no criminal antecedents against 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 fit and proper to allow this second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Pushpendra Singh S/o Shri Gajendra Singh 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 observation 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 /33