[2025:RJ-JP:27637] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 9223/2025 Sandeep @ Bachchiya S/o Shri Khubaram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Hamindpur, Police Station Behror, District Alwar. (At Present Confined In Sub District Jail Behror). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 23/07/2025 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.167/2023 registered at Police Station Behror, District Bhiwadi (Alwar) for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B & 34 of IPC and Sections 3/25 & 27 of Arms Act. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 120B & 34 of IPC. 2. First bail application (No.13854/2023) filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 24.03.2024. After rejection of first bail application, charges have been framed and five prosecution witnesses have been examined. Hence, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that [2025:RJ-JP:27637] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-9223/2025] main allegation of causing firearm injury is against co-accused, namely, Ajay Khori and Ravi. He further submits that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses examined so far at trial also suggest that the accused-petitioner has not caused any firearm injury to the deceased. He further submits that till date, out of 32 cited witnesses, only five witnesses have been examined. The petitioner is in custody since 12.03.2023 and as such, he has been behind the bars for almost two years and four months whereas trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. He places reliance upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of (1) Manishbhai Kalubhai Lathiya vs. State of Gujarat (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.8518/2024 decided on 13.08.2024, & (2) Athar Parwez v. Union of India [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1093 : 2024 INSC 995 wherein the accused was granted benefit of bail as there was no likelihood of trial being completed in near future. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons hatched a conspiracy. He actively participated in commission of crime. Learned Public Prosecutor further argues that the prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that the petitioner came along with other accused persons and after committing murder, all three went away. The villagers, who were present at the spot, tried to apprehend the accused petitioner but he threatened them with pistol. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar; material made [2025:RJ-JP:27637] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-9223/2025] available before me in the form of charge-sheet as well as testimonies of the prosecution witnesses so far recorded, as also looking to the gravity of offences and the role attributed to him that is to say active participation of the accused petitioner in alleged commission of crime, this Court is not persuaded to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, this second bail application is dismissed. So far as the judgments relied upon counsel for the petitioner are concerned, they were passed in different factual matrix and thus, are of no avail to the present case. 7. It is made clear that observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the bail application and would not prejudice trial in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /77