Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:39550] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8874/2025 Pushpendra S/o Bidharam, R/o Bhurekapura, Tan Gurdah, Police Station Langra, District Karauli (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In District Jail Karauli, District Karauli). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 11239/2025 Ajit Kumar S/o Govinda, R/o Domai, Police Station Sarmathura, District Dholpur (Raj.) (At Present Confined In District Jail Karauli). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tapeshwar Pal Singh Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun Mr. Anurag Chahar For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst. G.A. Ms. Mamta Agarwal, for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 10/09/2025
1. These bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS have been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.73/2023 registered at Langra, District Karauli for offences punishable under Sections 143 and 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for offences under Sections 147, 302, 364, 120 IPC has been filed in the court concerned. [2025:RJ-JP:39550] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-8874/2025]
2. Vide order dated 06.03.2025, the first bail application (No.15549/2023) filed on behalf of the petitioner Ajit Kumar was dismissed on merits. 3. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that petitioners are innocent and they have falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that there are serious contradictions in the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of trial, which creates serious doubt on the prosecution story. No incriminating evidence, against the petitioner has come on record. The petitioners are in custody since long. Trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners behind the bars as their custody is no more required for any other purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the bail applications. It is submitted that the accused persons brutally murdered the deceased Asharam. His face was burnt and nails were taken out from pliers by the accused persons. It is also argued that the prosecution witnesses examined so far, have supported the prosecution case and there are no such contradictions in their statements which prove fatal to the prosecution case.
It is contended that as per the charge sheet, the deceased Asharam used to stalk younger daughter of Lalpati with which, he was not happy and in order to teach lesson to the deceased, the accused Lalpati along with other co-accused hatched a conspiracy and brutally murdered the deceased. They also argue that first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed on merits and thereafter, nothing substantial changes have occurred. [2025:RJ-JP:39550] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-8874/2025]
5. I have heard the rival contentions advanced by the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. On 06.03.2025, first bail application of the accused petitioner Ajit Singh was dismissed on merits. No substantial change in circumstances have occasioned thereafter. Most of the prosecution witnesses have also been examined at trial as till April, 2025, as many as 22 witnesses have been examined. Thus, in the totality of the facts and circumstance of the present case and considering the gravity of the offence; manner in which the incident has occurred and nature of allegations attributed to the accused petitioners, but without making any comments on merits/demerits of the present case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Hence, the bail applications are dismissed. However, the trial court is requested to expedite the trial. 7. The observations made herein is only for disposal of the bail applications and would not prejudice trial in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /74-75