[2025:RJ-JP:27909] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 9426/2025 Ratanlal S/o Shri Hateela, R/o Peepalkhedi, Police Station Kel- wara, District Baran (Raj.). (At Present Confined At District Jail Baran) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samarth Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 25/07/2025 1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.80/2024 registered at Police Station Kelwara (Baran), District Baran (Raj.) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 13.12.2024 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of the complainant as well as one eye-witness namely- Pooja. Now, both the witnesses have been examined during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred. [2025:RJ-JP:27909] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-9426/2025] 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that it is a case of single blow and alleged incident took place in spur of the moment. Counsel submits that petitioner did not intend to kill the deceased who is real brother of the petitioner. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel contends that petitioner is in custody since 25.03.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. He submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of causing injury on the head of the deceased and according to the post-mortem report, cause of death is head injury. Counsel further submits that according to the post-mortem report, three injuries have been noted by the medical expert wherein two injuries were found on the head and one injury was noted on the left eye of the deceased. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, material available on record in the form of charge-sheet including testimony of the witnesses, as also considering the role attributed to the petitioner thus, looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, this second bail application stands dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:27909] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-9426/2025] 8. Considering the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner, learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial at the earliest and is further directed to conduct the trial on day-to- day basis. 9. 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 LALIT MOHAN /38