[2025:RJ-JP:31941] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8085/2025 Ganesh S/o Chiranji, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Rodi Guadi Thana Sapotra District Karauli Raj. (At Present Confined In District Jail, Sawaimadhopur). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 14/08/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.05/2003 registered at Police Station Bahrawanda Kamlan, District Sawaimadhopur for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that the accused-petitioner was not aware about the fact that police has declared him as absconder and standing warrant has been issued against him and petitioner himself surrendered before the concerned court. The police after investigation has submitted the supplementary charge-sheet before the concerned court against the petitioner. The accused-petitioner is in custody since 26.03.2025 and the trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. [2025:RJ-JP:31941] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-8085/2025] 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and contended that petitioner remained absent after lodging of the FIR. The present FIR was lodged in the year 2003 and thereafter several attempts were made to apprehend him, however petitioner could not be arrested thereafter warrant under Section 24 of the Police Act was obtained and due to non-execution of warrants statement of police official who went for the service of the arrest warrant was recorded and petitioner was declared absconded and the court issued standing warrant against the petitioner. In the instant case the offence alleges against the petitioner is under Section 302 read with Section 201 of IPC. The prosecution story states that the petitioner and other co-accused were seen together alongwith the deceased. Other co-accused faced the trial for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and were convicted for the offence under Section 302, therefore considering the above facts, the bail application of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on the record. 5. Considering the fact that the petitioner has remained absent for more than 22 years and did not make any endeavour to appear before the court and standing warrant were issued against him further offence itself against the petitioner is grave. If the petitioner is released on bail there is apprehension that petitioner may not turn-up before the court, therefore, considering the above fact, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. bail application stands dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J ashu /126