[2025:RJ-JP:34824] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12776/2024 Sahil Khan S/o Shri Saleem Ansari, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Juhu Malhi, Aahatmali Taraiya Sujan, District Khushi Nagar (Uttar Pradesh), Presently Tenant Of Plot No. 75/363, Sector 35, Pratap Nagar, Kumharon Ka Mohallan, Shyopur Sanganer, Police Station Sanganer, Jaipur. (Presently Confined In District Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta Mr. Aamir Khan For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 22/08/2025 1. Instant application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS by the applicant-accused Sahil Khan S/o Shri Saleem Ansari in FIR No. 305/2024 dated 28.06.2024 registered at P.S. Sanganer District – Jaipur City (East), whereby the applicant-accused was charged under Sections 307 of IPC. 2. The applicant was arrested on 30.06.2024 and is in judicial custody since his arrest. The Court below has dismissed the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant relying upon grounds raised in bail application submits that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. Further, he submits that the investigation relating to present [2025:RJ-JP:34824] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-12776/2024] applicant-accused is complete and is no more required, and a charge-sheet is already filed. He also submits that the trial will take time and no purpose will be served by keeping the applicant-accused in custody. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that on 28.06.2024 a report under Section 307 IPC was registered by Ramesh for assault upon his wife in the evening of 27.06.2024 by unknown persons and on the basis of report, police has investigated the matter. He further submitted that during treatment the injured has expired and police has recorded statement of complainant Ramesh under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, wherein he named present petitioner accused for assaulting his wife with bricks and stones and further stated that present petitioner was pressurizing deceased for marriage after divorce from complainant, which is highly improbable. He further submitted that the age of deceased was 38 years whereas age of present petitioner is 23 and the petitioner was a tuition teacher of children of complainant and deceased. He further submitted that there is no evidence to show that victim and deceased were having any affair and petitioner was involved in any consensual relation with deceased. He further submitted that during investigation, police has recovered shirt of petitioner accused but there is no FSL report on record to show that blood of deceased was found on shirt, recovery from petitioner. He further submitted that the trial is delayed and petitioner accused is in custody since his arrest on 30.06.2024. [2025:RJ-JP:34824] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-12776/2024] 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and she submitted that the petitioner accused is charged for heinous offence and he has delayed the trial by seeking adjournment at the stage of charge. 5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 6. On the basis of report lodged by Ramesh (husband of injured/ deceased) the matter is investigated and statement of Ramesh was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In his statement he alleged that the petitioner accused who was a tuition teacher for his children was having an evil eye and infactuated towards his wife and wants to marry his wife, but when she resisted and refused to accept proposal, the petitioner accused has assaulted her with bricks, resulted into ante-mortem injuries and later she succumbed to injuries. The police has recovered shirt and mobile from accused. The FSL report dated 30.05.2025 reflect traces of human blood on blood smeared shirt of accused but no DNA profile is identified. The case squarely rests upon circumstantial evidence. The status report received from trial court indicate that the charge is not framed till 08.04.2025 and it is a very serious negligence on part of the Presiding Officer. 7. The petitioner accused is arrested on 30.06.2024 and now it is more than one year and one month, but petitioner accues is charged for murder of a female (wife of complainant). 8. Considering the gravity of charge, it is not appropriate to grant bail to petitioner accused. [2025:RJ-JP:34824] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-12776/2024] 9. Hence, the bail application preferred by petitioner accused- Sahil Khan S/o Shri Saleem Ansari, is hereby dismissed. 10. The trial court is directed to expedite the trial after framing the charge and record the statement of complainant Ramesh on priority basis. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /2