[2025:RJ-JP:37409] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 10859/2025 Pappu @ Gunga S/o Harnam, R/o Biloth Police Station Lakhanpur, District Bharatpur (At Present Confined In District Jail, Bharatpur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 11235/2025 Rohit @ Ritu @ Ghundi S/o Shri Gajendra, R/o Village Biloth, Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur. (Currently In Central Jail, Bharatpur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Rinesh Gupta, Mr. Gaurav Sharma and Mr. Gorang Agarwal Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar with Mr. Shivam Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 15/09/2025 1. These second bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.111/2024 registered at Police Station [2025:RJ-JP:37409] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-10859/2025] Lakhanpur, District Bharatpur for offence under Section 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC. 2. The first bail applications preferred on behalf of the petitioners were dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 18.03.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of Investigating Officer as well as witness namely- Kanta. Now, these two witnesses have been examined during the course of trial and thus, these second bail applications have been preferred. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence however, no incriminating circumstances are appearing against the petitioners. It is submitted that arrest of the petitioners has been made on the basis of statement of last seen witness namely- Kanta. It is contended that said witness has been examined during the course of trial wherein she has not supported the prosecution case and she has been declared hostile. It is contended that mere recovery of blood-stained ‘fanta’ and ‘danda’ are not enough to connect the petitioners with the alleged crime and same was recovered after 12 days of the alleged incident, while sufficient time was available to the petitioners to dispose off the same. It is contended that bare perusal of recovery memo dated 11.05.2024 would reveal that blood-stained ‘dandas’ and ‘fanta’ were recovered at the place of incident which shows that further recovery of blood stained ‘fanta’ at the instance of [2025:RJ-JP:37409] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-10859/2025] petitioners is fake. It is argued that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner- Pappu @ Gunga is in custody since 20.05.2024 whereas petitioner- Rohit @ Ritu @ Ghundi is in custody since 22.05.2024 and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that recovery of blood stained ‘danda’ and ‘fanta’ at the instance of the petitioners shows that they were involved in murder of the deceased as same human blood group has been found on the ‘fanta’ and ‘dandas’ recovered from the place of incident. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, as also considering the fact that last seen witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution, so also the fact that entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow these second bail applications. 7. These second bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners (1) Pappu @ Gunga S/o Harnam and (2) Rohit @ Ritu @ Ghundi S/o Shri Gajendra, shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand [2025:RJ-JP:37409] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-10859/2025] Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 8. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of these bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /211-212