[2025:RJ-JP:25069] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No.7305/2025 Ramsaroop Meena S/o Ramnarayan, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Village Barana, Thana Sadar Baran, District Baran, Rajasthan. Presently Confined District Jail Baran. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prithvi Raj Singh Rajawat Mr. Shiv Pratap Singh Rajawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl. GA-cum-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 08/07/2025 1. This third bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the petitioner in connection with FIR No.255/2023 registered at Police Station Sadar Baran, District Baran wherein he is charged for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 323, 147, 148 & 149 of IPC (later on, he is charged for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307 & 302 read with Section 34 of IPC). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after rejection of the second bail application by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2025, now the statement of PW-14 Dr. Kuldeep Sharma has been recorded, who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased. Learned counsel submits that as per the statement of witness, the cause of death of the deceased is blunt injury while as per the case of the prosecution the petitioner has caused injury by Gandassi on the head of the deceased. Learned counsel submits that Gandassi is sharp edged weapon and there is no [2025:RJ-JP:25069] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-7305/2025] sharp injury on the head of the deceased, hence under these circumstances, the case of the prosecution is doubtful. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since the date of his arrest and the trial will take its own time to conclude, so indulgence of bail be granted to the petitioner. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the third bail application and submits that the same ground was argued by the petitioner when his second bail application was heard and decided. Learned counsel submits that, at the relevant time also, the same argument was raised that allegation against the petitioner is of causing injury by Gandassi, which is sharp edged weapon while the deceased has sustained injury by blunt weapon. Learned counsel submits that appreciating the above facts, this Court rejected the second bail application submitted by the petitioner, hence, there is no change in the circumstances, which warrants any interference of this Court. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the order dated 06.02.2025 passed by this Court clearly indicates that the same arguments were raised by the counsel for the petitioner at the relevant time and appreciating that argument, the second bail application of the petitioner was rejected. 6. This Court finds no change in the circumstances of the case, which warrants any interference to entertain this third bail application and the same is hereby rejected. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/2