[2025:RJ-JP:36897] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 11281/2025 Mohammad Sahil S/o Mohammad Samir, Aged About 26 Years, R/o 131/49-B, Begam Purwa, Police Station Babupurwa, District Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh At Present Tenant House Number 98-A, Pushpa Marg, Krishna Colony, Ramgarh Modh, Police Station Brahmpuri, Jaipur- Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sikander Ali Chopdar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 11/09/2025 1. The second bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 196/2024 registered at Police Station Jaisinghpura Khor, District Jaipur City (North) for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 307, 302 and 34 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 01.04.2025, thereafter, the prosecution witnesses are not turning up in the Court and the matter is pending since long for recording of statements of the witnesses, the trial of the case may take considerable time. The [2025:RJ-JP:36897] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-11281/2025] statement of PW-2 Sufiyan is not reliable and in his cross- examination, he has stated different story, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and contended that the first bail application of the accused-petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 01.04.2025 on merits after considering the statement of PW-2 Sufiyan and the Court specifically observed that PW-2 Sufyian stated against the petitioner. There is no change in circumstances after dismissal of first bail application, only delay in trial cannot be a ground to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail, in the offence of murder. The prosecution has already examined 8 witnesses, out of 20 cited witnesses and expected to examine the other witnesses in near future, therefore, the second bail application of the accused- petitioner may be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the fact that the first bail application of the accused-petitioner was dismissed after considering the statement of eye witness, PW-2 Sufiyan and there is no change in circumstances, afterward except few witnesses have been recorded and the trial of the case may take considerable time as the matter pertains to murder of deceased and causing injuries to other injured Mohd. Shahrukh, therefore, considering the above facts, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 6. Hence, the second bail application of the accused-petitioner is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/19