[2025:RJ-JP:19163] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14724/2023 Mahendra Singh S/o Late Nandaram, R/o Bharija, Ps Dataramgarh, District Sikar (Presently, The Accused Is Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Shrawan Kumar S/o Chhoturam Jat, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Umara, Dantaramgarh, Sikar (Presently R/o B-10, 2Nd Manzil, Hall Hc 1887, Traffice Police Aayuktalay Jaipur, Government Quarter Darbar School, Jalupura, Jaipur City (North), Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Chauhan with Mr. Rajender Singh Rajawat Mr. Hitanshu Joshi For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Jai Prakash Tiwari, PP Mr. Anshuman Saxena HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 11/02/2025 1. The instant bail application under Section 439 of Cr.PC, has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.29/2023 registered at Police Station Jobner, District Jaipur Rural (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 392 & 120B of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 392, 37 & 120B of IPC. [2025:RJ-JP:19163] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-14724/2023] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and no incriminating evidences are appearing against the petitioner. It is submitted that other co-accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by this court as well as learned trial court. Counsel submits that in order to rope the petitioner in the present case, evidence has been fabricated by the Investigating Agency. Counsel submits that one vehicle has been shown to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner however, it has been stated by the owner of the vehicle that the vehicle was already in his possession and he was forced by the Police Officers to provide his vehicle for recovery. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since 24.01.2023 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned State Counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the bail application. It is submitted that case of the present petitioner is on different footing from the co-accused person who has been granted benefit of bail by this court. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that other co-accused have been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 201, 120B & 37 of IPC while petitioner has been charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 392, 37 & 120B of IPC. It is submitted that there is serious allegation against the petitioner. The deceased was having huge cash and he was lastly seen in the company of the petitioner and thereafter, he was found [2025:RJ-JP:19163] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-14724/2023] dead. It has come out during investigation that the deceased was murdered for the huge cash, carried by him at the relevant time. It is further submitted that petitioner along with co-accused persons were found in possession of the dead body. As per the charge-sheet, co-accused persons were called by the petitioner to dispose of the dead body but they were apprehended by the police, before they could dispose of the same. 4. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced at bar and material made available before me in the form of charge-sheet; role attributed to the petitioner, as also considering the fact that deceased was last seen with the petitioner and thereafter, he was found dead and his dead body was found in possession of the petitioner, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Looking to the gravity of offence and nature of allegations, I am not inclined to accept the instant bail application. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /273