[2025:RJ-JP:27334] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 8238/2025 Veekesh Singh S/o Shri Dhaniram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Deendayal Nagar Colony, Bharatpur, Police Station Mathuragate, Bharatpur ( Presently Confined At Central Jail Sewar Bharatpur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharam Gopal Chaturvedi with Mr. Rajesh Sharma Ms. Kamini Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 18/07/2025 1. This second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.1006/2024 registered at Police Station Mathura Gate, District Bharatpur (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 80(2), 85 & 61(2)(a) of BNS. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 18.03.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that petitioner is working in merchant navy and used to stay out of India in connection with his job. There was healthy relationship between the spouses. The petitioner was not present in India at the time of alleged incident as he was in Singapore. It is contended that in the [2025:RJ-JP:27334] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-8238/2025] testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, nothing incriminating has come on record which shows that the deceased was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry. He also contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as till date only 4 prosecution witnesses have been examined out of 25 cited prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that other co-accused person namely- Barfi Devi has already been granted benefit of bail by this court. Petitioner is in custody since 14.12.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that by a detailed order, first bail application of the petitioner was rejected on merits and after rejection of the first bail application, there has been no substantial change in circumstances. The prosecution witnesses so far examined have clearly alleged against the petitioner. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, and the testimonies of all the four prosecution witnesses examined so far, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. After rejection of first bail application, there is no substantial change in circumstances. 6. Accordingly, this second bail application is dismissed. 7. The observation made hereinabove is only for disposal of the instant bail application and would not prejudice trial in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /33