[2025:RJ-JP:34096] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 9601/2025 Ramkuwaar Meena S/o Biharilal Meena, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Harnaavda, Police Station Atru, District Baran (Raj.) (Presently Confined In District Jail, Baran). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 27/08/2025 1. The instant 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.347/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 34 of IPC. 2. The second bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 10.03.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that recovery officer has been examined during the course of trial and he is not a reliable witness. It is submitted that co-accused namely- Rajendra Meena @ Raju Mundala has already been granted benefit of bail by this Court. It is contended that trial will take [2025:RJ-JP:34096] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-9601/2025] considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 08.06.2023 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 second bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by this court on merits and as such, there is no material change in circumstances warranting interference of this Court. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the role attributed to the petitioner, as also the fact that weapon used in commission of crime has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner and further considering the ballistic expert report, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, this third bail application stands dismissed. 7. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/111