[2025:RJ-JP:26609] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 7333/2025 Nirmala W/o Late Kishanlal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Mana Ki Dhani Tan Guman Singh Ki Dhani, Police Station Khandela, District Sikar Rajasthan. (Presently Confined In District Jail, Sikar). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anish Bhadala For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP Mr. Mangilal, SHO at present Police Station Sadar Jhunjhunu (Raj.) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 11/07/2025 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.100/2024 registered at Police Station Khandela, District Sikar (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 120B of IPC. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 04.12.2024 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of complainant as well as Investigating Officer. Now, [2025:RJ-JP:26609] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-7333/2025] aforesaid witnesses have been examined during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that no evidence is available on record against the petitioner to connect her with the alleged crime. Counsel submits that no recovery has been made from the possession of the petitioner. It is further submitted that prosecution failed to establish the fact that petitioner was in contact with the co- accused namely- Ashish Meena against whom there is allegation of committing murder as Investigating Officer failed to recover the mobile phone of the petitioner. It is submitted that there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future. Counsel submits that petitioner is a female and she is languishing in jail since 16.03.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. Under the instruction of Investigating Officer, learned state counsel submits that there is allegation against the petitioner that she was having an affair with co-accused- Ashish Meena and murder of the husband has been committed by the said co-accused. He submits that 31 calls were exchanged between the petitioner and co-accused on the date of the alleged murder and 24 calls out of the 31 calls were made by the petitioner. He further submits that it is also evident from the record that said mobile number is issued in the name of the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:26609] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-7333/2025] 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, material available on record in the form of charge-sheet including testimony of the witnesses, as also considering the role attributed to the petitioner and the fact that petitioner and co- accused were in constant touch through mobile phone on the date of the alleged murder and any deficiency or irregularity in Investigation cannot be the ground to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner thus, looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, this second bail application stands dismissed. 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 LALIT MOHAN /342