[2025:RJ-JP:11999] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11479/2024 Pushpadevi W/o Shri Bhupendra Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Khanpur, Police Station Bhusawar, Distt. Bharatpur. (At Present Confined In Womens Correctional Home, Bharatpur). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11860/2024 Bhanu Pratap Singh S/o Prahlad Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Pathena, Police Station Bhusawar, District Bharatpur At Present Lodged In The Sub Jail, Weir District Bharatpur. ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 470/2025 Vikram Singh @ Vikky @ Banda S/o Chhatar Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Pathaina, Police Station Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.). (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Bayana). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Gaharana, Adv., Mr. Ashvin Garg, Adv., and Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP [2025:RJ-JP:11999] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-11479/2024] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 30/01/2025 1. These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.297/2024 registered at Police Station Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Later on, Police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 34 and 120-B of IPC. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submit that entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no incriminating evidence appearing in the charge-sheet against the petitioners. They argue that charge-sheet has already been filed and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. They contend that the petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners. He submits that there is serious allegation against the petitioners and according to the evidence collected during the course of the investigation, it appears that deceased has been murdered on account of illicit relations and ample evidence is available on record against the petitioners. He further submits that CCTV footage has been collected in this matter and petitioners- ‘B’ and ‘V’ have been captured in the CCTV [2025:RJ-JP:11999] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-11479/2024] footage. He contends that petitioner 'P' is the daughter-in-law of the deceased, and the deceased was objecting to the illicit relationship between accused 'P' and accused 'V'. 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 and role attributed to the petitioners appearing in the charge-sheet and also considering the gravity of offence, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I do not find it a fit case to allow these bail applications. 6. These bail applications are accordingly dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/68-69 & S-408