HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12712/2024 Bachchu Singh S/o Ratanlal, Salimpur, Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur Presently Contable 10/539 Police Line, Bharatpur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Kumar Mr. Ravindra Maan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 07/02/2025 1. Apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.574/2014 registered at Police Station Mathura Gate, District Bharatpur for the offence(s) under Sections 143, 323, 325, 341 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, the petitioner has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that prima facie there is no case made out against the petitioner for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. It is also contended that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation, therefore, anticipatory bail application of the petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the anticipatory bail application. (2 of 2) [CRLMB-12712/2024] 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the fact that the petitioner has challenged the order of cognizance before the concerned Court which was dismissed in the revision petition way back in 12.03.2019, thereafter, the petitioner challenged the matter before the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and same was dismissed vide order dated 12.09.2024. The petitioner was having full knowledge that against him proceedings for summoning him for the offence under Section 302 of IPC has been instituted despite that the petitioner did not appear. The charge-sheet against the petitioner was submitted under Section 299 of Cr.P.C. before the concerned Court. The FIR pertains to year 2014 and for 10 years despite knowing the fact that cognizance has been taken against him and the revision petition has been dismissed, the petitioner did not mark his presence before the trial Court, therefore, considering the above facts, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on anticipatory bail. 6. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner is hereby, dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J DEEPA RANI -18