HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No.15215/2024 Jayraj Singh S/o Shri Jai Kumar Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Plot No. 8, Gulab Marg, Prem Nagar, Khatipura Road, Police Station Jhotwara, Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur From 30.09.2021). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Mithlesh Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sarfaraz Hyder Khan, SPP with Mr. Sumit Kumar, Mr. Anshul Mathur and Mr. Mirza Shoaib JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 10/01/2025 1. The present third bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been submitted by the petitioner on the ground of parity. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that after rejection of the second bail application submitted by the petitioner, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted indulgence of bail to the co-accused Satyavan Kadwasra vide order dated 18.07.2024. Counsel submits that following the aforesaid order, indulged of bail has been granted to the co-accused Jitendra Kumar vide order dated 12.09.2024. Counsel submits that the case of the petitioner is on better footings in comparison to above two co-accused persons, to whom indulgence of bail has already been granted. Counsel submits (2 of 3) [CRLMB-15215/2024] that as per case of the prosecution, the petitioner has provided a sim card to the accused Ashish Shekhawat and after commission of the occurrence, Ashish Shekhawat called one person Vikram Singh whose statements have been recorded as PW-9 during the course of trial and he has not supported the version of prosecution, hence, he has been declared as hostile. Counsel submits that in the entire prosecution story, there is no specific allegation against the petitioner, that in which manner he was involved in the conspiracy hatched by the other co-accused persons, hence, under these circumstances, indulgence of bail be granted to the petitioner. 3. Per contra, Special Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that as per the statements of Vishwas Sarsar (PW-1), a conspiracy was hatched by the accused persons prior to commission of offence. Counsel submits that it was agreed by the accused persons that after commission of the offence, the accused persons would require mobile phone and the shooter who is the main accused i.e. Ashish Shekhawat told the other accused persons that he will get new sim cards from the petitioner. Counsel submits that accordingly, the petitioner provided sim card to the main accused Ashish Shekhawat, who after commission of the occurrence called Vikram Singh (PW-9). Counsel submits that under these circumstances, the petitioner was involved in the conspiracy hatched by the co-accused persons that is why charge under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC has been framed against him. Counsel submits that the case of the petitioner is (3 of 3) [CRLMB-15215/2024] not at par with the case of co-accused persons i.e. Satyavan Kadwasra and Jitendra Kumar, as no charge under Section 120-B IPC was framed against them. The charge framed against them was under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC. Counsel further submits that on earlier two occasions, the bail applications submitted by the petitioner have been rejected by this Court after appreciating the evidence available on the record and there is no change in the facts and circumstances of the case, which warrants any interference to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioner. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned Special Public Prosecutor and looking to the fact that after submission of charge-sheet, charges were framed against the co-accused persons namely Satyavan Kadwasra and Jitendra Kumar for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC, while charge has been framed against the petitioner under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner's case is not at par with them, which warrants any interference of this Court. This Court finds no change in the facts and circumstances of the case to entertain this third bail application submitted by the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the instant third bail application is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/1