[2025:RJ-JP:14169] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14561/2024 Arfeen S/o Shri Kamruddin, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Khedli Bahadur, Police Station Govindgarh, District Alwar (Rajasthan) (At Present Petitioner Is Confined In Central Jail Sewar, Bharatpur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tara Chand Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) For Complainant : : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP Mr. Harendra Singh, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 27/03/2025 1. The instant 3rd bail application has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. (439 Cr.P.C.) on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.180/2020, registered at Police Station Nagar, District Bharatpur, for the offence(s) under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of IPC. 2. The accused-petitioner has moved this present third bail application on the grounds that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 21.04.2020 and only 13 witnesses have been recorded out of cited 25 witnesses. It is contended that similarly placed co-accused Raveesa has already been enlarged on bail on the ground of delay in trial and the case of the present accused petitioner is akin to the case of the other co-accused Raveesa. It is [2025:RJ-JP:14169] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-14561/2024] also contended that no recovery was effected from the possession of the present petitioner, the dead body of the deceased was recovered prior to lodging of the FIR. It is also contended that the case purely rests upon the circumstantial evidence and since the recovery has been effected before the registration of FIR, the same creates doubt. It is also contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the motive, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the grant of bail application. It is contended that the second bail application of the accused-petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 04.08.2023, after considering the arguments on merits and thereafter 10 witnesses have already been examined by the learned trial court. It is specifically alleged that dead body of the deceased was recovered from the possession of the accused-petitioner. It is also contended that the bail application of the other co-accused Saddam was also rejected by this Court. Similarly, it is further argued that the bail application of the other co-accused Sabu was also rejected by this Court. The said order was challenged by the other co-accused Sabu by way of Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the said Special leave petition. The allegations against the other co- accused Raveesa, who was enlarged on bail vide order dated 23.05.2024 are not akin to the case of the present accused petitioner, as the co-accused Raveesa has been granted bail on the ground of delay in trial and also that she is a female, therefore, [2025:RJ-JP:14169] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-14561/2024] the third bail application of the present accused-petitioner may be dismissed. 5. Heard and perused the material available on record. 6. The second bail application of the petitioner was dismissed vide order 04.08.2023 on merits. It was observed by the Co- ordinate Bench that at the instance of the present accused- petitioner’s, dead body of the deceased, slippers, sim cards and mobile were recovered. The bail application of the similarly placed co-accused Saddam was also rejected by this Court. It is to be noted that after the rejection of the second bail application of the present accused-petitioner the trial Court has recorded 10 witnesses i.e., total 13 witnesses out of 25 cited witnesses. 7. Considering the facts that the allegations levelled against the present accused-petitioner are grave in nature and the earlier bail application of the accused petitioner was dismissed on merits, I do not find any ground to entertain the present third bail application of the accused-petitioner, therefore, the third bail application of the accused-petitioner stands dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-38