[2025:RJ-JP:1212] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12399/2024 Ramchandra @ Kalu S/o Birdaram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Doongari Kala Police Station Renwal District Jaipur. At Present In Sub Jail, Sambharlake. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr Rakesh for Mr. Dinesh Pareek HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 08/01/2025 1. The instant bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.34/2023 PS Renwal, District Jaipur Rural for offence under Section 302 IPC. After completion of investigation, police has filed chargesheet in the court concerned for the aforesaid offence. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that after completion of investigation, police has filed chargesheet in the court concerned. There is no eye witness of the incident and none of the prosecution witness has stated in their evidence that they saw accused committing murder of the deceased. The petitioner is in custody since his date of arrest. Trial [2025:RJ-JP:1212] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-12399/2024] will take time in its conclusion and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the accused petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite time period. He thus, prays that the petitioner may be released on bail. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant oppose submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. It is contended that the petitioner is named in the FIR. There is clear allegation against him that he murdered the deceased with an iron pipe, which has been supported by the prosecution witnesses in their court testimony. They draw attention of the court towards court testimony of PW.3 Rakesh Joshi, who runs a shop adjacent to the shop of the deceased. The witness clearly deposed that at the time of incident, the accused petitioner, covering himself with a bed-sheet, was sitting in the clinic of the deceased. He heard noise coming out of the clinic on which, he went there and saw the accused petitioner coming outside the clinic with an iron pipe (musli). The deceased was lying unconscious on the table and blood was oozing from his head. It is thus, submitted that looking to the nature of offence and seriousness of allegations, the accused petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail. 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 considering the testimony of the witnesses so far examined including PW.3 Rakesh Joshi, and looking to the [2025:RJ-JP:1212] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-12399/2024] gravity of offence and seriousness of allegations, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands dismissed. 6. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /752