[2025:RJ-JP:600] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8536/2024 Babloo @ Veeru S/o Radheyshyam, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Sunkai Police Station Sarmathura District Dholpur. At Present In District Jail, Dholpur. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 06/01/2025 1. The instant application under Section 483 of BNSS 2023 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein who is in custody since 06.05.2023 in connection with FIR No.171/2023 PS Sarmathura District Dholpur for offence under Section 302 IPC. After completion of investigation, the police has filed chargesheet in the matter. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He contends that it is a case of circumstantial evidence as initially, on 05.05.2023, the present FIR was lodged against some unknown persons. He submits that charge-sheet has been filed against the accused petitioner alleging therein that the petitioner was lastly seen in the company of the deceased on the basis of the [2025:RJ-JP:600] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-8536/2024] statements of witnesses Bahadur and Bunty @ Lokesh recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He contends that both these persons were also the witnesses of the Fard Panchayat Nama and Nirakshan Lash prepared on 05.05.2023 but at that time, both these witnesses did not disclose this fact of last seen of the deceased in the company of the petitioner herein to anyone. The petitioner has been arrested on 06.05.2023 whereas statements of these witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded on 08.05.2023 and therefore, the story/version narrated by them is doubtful. Apart from this, Bunty, who claimed himself to the last seen eyewitness has been examined at trial as PW.5, and he has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. It is also contended that after arrest of the petitioner, recoveries of mobile phones, blood stained clothes and motorcycle have been shown to be effected at the instance of the petitioner from the house of the petitioner but surprisingly, same were effected on different dates. Two mobile phones (Vivo company and Samsung company) of the deceased were recovered from the house of the deceased on 07.05.2023 whereas the blood stained clothes of the deceased was recovered from the same house of the petitioner on 08.05.2023 which creates doubts on the prosecution story. The petitioner is in custody since 06.05.2023. He has no criminal antecedents and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that during investigation, it has come out that he has murdered the deceased. [2025:RJ-JP:600] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-8536/2024] 4. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar as also the fact that PW.5 Bunty @ Lokesh, who claimed himself to lastly see the deceased in the company of the petitioner, has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case; period of custody which is almost 20 months till date; absence of criminal antecedents and trial will take time in its conclusion but without commenting anything on merits/demerits of the case, I am of I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 5. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Babloo @ Veeru S/o Shri Radheyshyam 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. 6. 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 /752