[2025:RJ-JP:27609] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 9371/2025 Dhanwan @ Monu S/o Satish, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Jatwara Khurd, Police Station Mantown, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In District Jail, Sawai Madhopur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 23/07/2025 1. This third bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.251/2024 registered at Police Station Mantown, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 140(1), 142, 103(1) & 3(5) 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 by this court vide order dated 28.02.2025 while giving liberty to the petitioner to renew the prayer of bail after recording the testimony of police personnel namely Arvind Kumar. Thereafter, second bail application was filed on behalf of the petitioner however, same was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 21.04.2025 while giving liberty to the [2025:RJ-JP:27609] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-9371/2025] petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of Investigating Officer. Now, both the aforesaid witnesses have been examined during the course of trial, thus this third bail application has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that it appears from the testimony of Investigating Officer that petitioner was not involved in commission of crime and he was not with the deceased when he was lastly seen by the police constable. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as till date only 3 witnesses have been examined out of 24 cited prosecution witnesses. Counsel further contends that petitioner is in custody since 24.07.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that by a detailed order, first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed and after rejection of first bail application, there has been no substantial change in circumstances to entertain this third bail application. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, as also considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet including testimony of Investigating Officer as well as police personnel namely Arvind Kumar who lastly saw the deceased in the company of the petitioner and two others at about 12:30 AM and after two hours, he received the information that one dead body has been found near the Hotel Ram Shyam, which [2025:RJ-JP:27609] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-9371/2025] was identified as of deceased thus, looking to the nature and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, this third bail application is dismissed. 7. The observations 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 GAUTAM JAIN /78