[2025:RJ-JP:5373] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 361/2025 Ramswaroop Meena S/o Ram Narayan, aged about 62 Years, R/o Village Barana, PS Sadar Baran, Dist. Baran (Raj.) (At Present in Dist. Jail, Baran) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma-Addl.G.A with Mr. Aman Kumar JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 06/02/2025 1. The first bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this Court vide order dated 16.07.2024 granting him liberty to renew his prayer for bail after recording the statements of the material eye-witnesses including the injured persons. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that after passing of the aforesaid order, now the statements of the material witnesses namely PW1- Chandraprakash, PW5-Brijraj and PW7-Vijendra have been recorded. Counsel submits that as per the initial version of the prosecution, the petitioner inflicted gandasi blow on the head of the deceased while as per the post-mortem report, the deceased has not sustained any sharp injury. Counsel submits that now the earlier version has been changed and this material witnesses have stated that the petitioner has inflicted injury by Kutiya. Counsel submits that recovery of Gandasi has been [2025:RJ-JP:5373] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-361/2025] effected at the instance of the petitioner. Counsel submits that the deceased has not sustained any sharp injury and all the injuries have been received by a blunt object and substantive statement was given by the witnesses that the deceased has sustained injury by falling on the part of the tractor. Counsel submits that on account of the property dispute between the parties, cross cases have been lodged and looking to the period of incarceration of the petitioner, indulgence of bail be granted to the petitioner. 3 Per contra, learned Government Counsel opposes the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submits that after rejection of the first bail application, there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case and all the above three witnesses have categorically stated in their statements that the petitioner has inflicted head injury upon the deceased and the said injury is the cause of death, hence under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to get indulgence of bail by this Court. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on record. 5. Looking to the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner and looking to the gravity of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the second bail application submitted by the petitioner and the same is hereby dismissed. 6. The second bail application filed by the petitioner is dismissed. 7. However the Trial Court is expected to expedite the proceeding of the trial. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/1