[2025:RJ-JP:11753] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11427/2024 1. Vikas S/o Shri Tofanmal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Nrasinghpura, Police Station Kaladera, District Jaipur (Raj.). 2. Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Hemraj, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Nrasinghpura, Police Station Kaladera, District Jaipur (Raj.). 3. Banshidhar Sethi S/o Shri Ramsahai, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ajeetgarh Road, Samod, Police Station Samod, District Jaipur (Raj.). (Accused Petitioners Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Accused-Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumer Singh Ola, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP and Mr. Rahul Agarwal, Adv., for complainant. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 30/01/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.98/2024 registered at Police Station Kaladera, District Jaipur Rural (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 176 of IPC. Later on, Police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of IPC. [2025:RJ-JP:11753] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-11427/2024] 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no incriminating evidence appearing in the charge-sheet against the petitioners. He further submits that according to the first information report, it has been alleged that the petitioners were in the car alongwith deceased at about 5:30 AM while witness stated that at about 5:30 AM, the deceased was found on the road. He argues that charge-sheet has already been filed and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. He contends that the petitioners are in custody since 24.04.2024 and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. They submit that it is evident from the charge-sheet that petitioners were lastly found in the company of deceased and thereafter deceased was not found alive. Further, the vehicle which was used in commission of crime has been recovered and blood stained has been found in the vehicle. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as also looking to the material available on record in the form of case diary including testimony of three prosecution witnesses and also considering the gravity of offence, [2025:RJ-JP:11753] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-11427/2024] but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I do not find it a fit case to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording the testimony of Investigating Office of this case. 7. Trial Court is also directed to record the testimony of Investigating Officer of this case on priority basis. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/67