[2025:RJ-JP:35744] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13760/2024 Murari Lal S/o Babulal, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Ranoli, Police Station Balghat, District Karauli (Rajasthan) (Presently Confined In Sub Jail, Hindaun City, District Karauli). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta Mr. Fateh Ram Meena Mr. Utkarsh Goyal, Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Mr. Bhanu Pratap Saini, Akash Sharma & Ms. Chanchal Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 27/08/2025 1. The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Murari Lal S/o Babulal seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.77/2024 dated 04.05.2024 registered at P.S. Balghat, District- Karauli, for the offence under Section 302/34 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He [2025:RJ-JP:35744] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13760/2024] also submits that the applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that complainant Mangati Khan has lodged a complaint on 04.05.2024 against unknown persons for murder of Aasu. He further submits that some persons were named only on ground of suspicion but present applicant was neither named in the report nor he was suspected by complainant. He further submitted that on 09.05.2024, police has seized a CCTV footage and thereafter, analysed CCTV footage, wherein for the first time, name of present applicant Murari Lal was revealed only for alleged recce on three times. He further submits that as per post mortem report, the cause of death is gunshot injury and in CCTV footage, nowhere found that applicant-accused is having a firearm at the time of recce. He further submits that the allegation of firing in upon Hariom Meena and not upon present applicant. He also referred statement of Ravi Khan and submits that he also mentioned animosity between Hariom meena and deceased Usman @ Aasu, but there is no animosity with present applicant. He further submits that police has filed a charge-sheet before the Trial Court and at current pace, trial will take time, whereas applicant-accused is in custody since 01.07.2024. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. 5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. [2025:RJ-JP:35744] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-13760/2024] 6. On basis of report lodged by complainant Mangati Khan on 04.05.2024 against unknown persons, a case under Section 302 IPC is registered and police has investigated the matter. During investigation, CCTV footage from vicinity, were procured and same were analysed. Police has found that the applicant-accused has visited the residence of deceased Usman on three occasions, and soon after his last visit, Hariom Meena came on spot and he fired a gunshot upon deceased Usman @ Aasu, which resulted into death. The CCTV footage, which analysed in the presence of Ravi Khan and Mangati Khan indicate that at 02.16.48 applicant- accused has sent some signal and at 02.17.27 second person (Hariom) appeared at the crime scene and at 02.17.36, he fired a gunshot. The timing is very crucial as police has charge present applicant-accused with aid of Section 34 of IPC, which means applicant-accused is having a common intention of murder of deceased with Hariom Meena. 7. The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicant in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused on bail. 8. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicant accused at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Murari Lal S/o Babulal, is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /162