[2025:RJ-JP:5027] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11893/2024 Mohan Singh S/o Shri Ganpat Singh, R/o Ratadiya, Police Station Sendra, District Beawar, At Present Resident Of Himmat Nagar, Bheru Ji Ki Danti Fatehpuriya Doyam, Police Station Saket Nagar, Beawar, District Beawar (Raj.) (At Present In Central Jail, Ajmer). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Savita Nathawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.R. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 05/02/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.167/2024 registered at Police Station Saket Nagar, District Beawar for the offence(s) under Section 302 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 entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence and it is the duty of the prosecution to bring forth the entire circumstances indicating the involvement of the accused- petitioner in the alleged offence. The prosecution is failed to put forth the substantive evidence regarding the motive of the accused-petitioner in causing death of the deceased and so also [2025:RJ-JP:5027] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-11893/2024] any connectivity in the said case. As per the charge-sheet, it is alleged against the accused-petitioner that he conspired with other co-accused Mahendra Singh and Shyam Singh and thereafter, co-accused Mahendra Singh and Shyam Singh caused murder of the deceased. It is also contended that the prosecution has not able to prove that co-accused Mahendra Singh and Shyam Singh caused murder of the deceased. The prosecution has collected CCTV footage from the place of occurrence but the analysis of CCTV footage shows that the persons who were seen on a Scooty vehicle were not identifiable. From the co-accused Mahendra Singh and Shyam Singh, no incriminating evidence was collected. It is also contended that, apart from the oral evidence, there is no substantiating evidence that the accused-petitioner has borrowed money from the deceased. It is also stated in the charge-sheet that the accused-petitioner before hatching conspiracy to cause murder of the deceased conducted recce regarding the movement of the deceased, but that evidence is also not available on the record. It is also contended that the Scooty vehicle which was allegedly used for commission of offence was also not identifiable in the CCTV footage. The Investigating Officer submitted an application before the concerned RTO regarding the registration details of Scooty Activa 125 CC for last two years from the date of occurrence, in the list also, the Scooty which was recovered at the instance of the other co-accused has not been shown. The Trial Court have not yet recorded any statements of the witnesses till now, this Court vide order dated 24.01.2025 directed learned counsel for the accused-petitioner to [2025:RJ-JP:5027] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-11893/2024] apprise the Court about the status of the trial, as per the certified copy of the order-sheet of Trial Court upto 04.01.2025, no statements were recorded by the Trial Court and the matter is fixed for statement of witnesses on 11.02.2025. The accused- petitioner is in custody since 05.04.2024 and trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, considering the above facts, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and contended that the entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. There is oral evidence to the fact that the accused-petitioner took loan from the deceased. The other co- accused Mahendra Singh, apprehended by the police, was driver of the present petitioner and at his instance, a Scooty was recovered and other incriminating material a rod which was used for commission of offence and clothes of Mahendra Singh were recovered, therefore, considering the above facts, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the fact that the entire case rests upon the circumstantial evidence. Admittedly there is no last seen evidence. It is alleged against the accused-petitioner that he hatched conspiracy with the other co-accused to cause murder of the deceased and also conducted recce about the movement of the deceased. There is no evidence to the fact that the accused- petitioner conducted recce of the deceased. There is no evidence regarding motive of the petitioner, apart from the oral evidence of the deceased's daughter and wife. In the CCTV footage, the [2025:RJ-JP:5027] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-11893/2024] persons seem near to the place of occurrence were also not identifiable. There are no call details connected between the accused-petitioner and the other co-accused. The order-sheet of the Court shows that the Trial Court has not recorded statements of any witnesses till now. The accused-petitioner is in custody since 05.04.2024, therefore, considering the above facts and without expressing anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Mohan Singh S/o Shri Ganpat Singh in connection with FIR No.167/2024 registered at Police Station Saket Nagar, District Beawar shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/24