[2025:RJ-JP:36344] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 9780/2025 Abhimanyu @ Mintu S/o Jaswant, R/o Silarpur, Tehsil Neemrana, District Kotputli-Behror, Rajasthan At Present Lodged In The Central Jail, Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, Public Prosecutor Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi with Mr. Alakh Parashar for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 09/09/2025 1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No.354/2023 registered at Police Station Neemrana, District Bhiwadi for the offences under Sections 302 & 120-B IPC and Sections 3/25 & 3/27 Arms Act. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that as per the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the witness, namely, Sandeep and his examination before the learned trial Court recorded as PW-4, there is nothing on record to show that the accused-petitioner was in conversation with the co- accused who have committed murder of the deceased. He further submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody for last about 1 year and 11 months. [2025:RJ-JP:36344] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-9780/2025] 3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the bail application. 4. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material available on record. 5. This Court while allowing the bail application of the accused- petitioner bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9063/2024 on 23.07.2024 in para No.6 & 7 has observed as under:- “The allegation against the petitioner is of participating in the conspiracy for committing murder of the deceased and giving money to the shooters namely; Yashpal and Sachin, who said to have committed actual murder of the deceased. It is also alleged that other accused who were involved in the said conspiracy were Jaiveer and Satyaprakash. There is no evidence on record with regard to any consversation of the accused petitioner with the shooters namely; Sachin and Yashpal. Co-accused Jaiveer, who is said to have also participated in the conspiracy, has already been released on bail by this Court. Taking into consideration the allegations levelled against the petitioner and also the fact that co- accused Jaiveer has already been enlarged on bail, this Court, without expressing any opinion on merits or demerits of this case, deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioner-Abhimanyu on bail.” 6. Being aggrieved by the order of releasing the accuse- petitioner on bail by this Court, the complainant-Roopesh Kumar has approached before the Hon’ble Apex Court by filing SLP (Crl.) [2025:RJ-JP:36344] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-9780/2025] No.13269/2024. The Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 21.11.2024 allowed the appeal and cancelled the order of grant of bail by this Court observing as under:- “We have also examined the reasons given in the three impugned orders granting bail, referred to above, and find that they do not take into account the factors and evidence that were mentioned by the prosecution in the charge- sheet along with the material produced and relied upon. Keeping in view the gravity of the offences, the period of incarceration undergone by the three respondents/accused, and the stage of the trail, we feel that the High Court was not correct in enlarging the three respondents, namely, Jaiveer, Abhimanyu @ Mintu and Sataprakash @ Satya @ Chaniya, on bail on connection with the charge-sheet in the present case. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgments/orders and allow the present appeals.” 7. Since this Court granted a bail to the accused-petitioner on the same grounds which are being submitted by the petitioner now and thereafter, the order of grant of bail has been cancelled by the Hon’ble Apex Court, on very same grounds this Court is clubbed with the hands for providing the same submissions again. Hence, this Court finds no ground to enlarge the accused- petitioner on bail. 8. Accordingly, this second bail application is dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /3