[2025:RJ-JP:10354] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 15002/2024 Arjun Patona S/o Shri Gopal Patona, R/o Purani Sabarmati Colony, P.s. Kaithunipole, Kota (Raj.). (Accused At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 1459/2025 Banwari Narwal S/o Dhanraj Narwal, R/o Old Sabarmati Colony, Police Station Kaithunpol, District Kota, (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Kota). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mritunjya Sharma Mr. Avtar Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Suresh Sahani Mr. Pawan Kumar Verma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 07/03/2025 1. These bail applications under Section 483 BNSS have been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.25/2022 registered at Police Station Kaithunipole District Kota City for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 341, 120B, 147, 148 & 149 of IPC. Later on, charge-sheet has been filed in this matter. [2025:RJ-JP:10354] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-15002/2024] 2. The second bail application of petitioner- Banwari Narwal was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.07.2024 with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording testimony of Investigating Officer. Now, statement of Investigating Officer has been recorded during the course of trial. 3. The First Bail application of petitioner- Arjun Patona was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.07.2023 with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording testimony of eye- witnesses namely- Swati, Ranu and Complainant- Sunil Kumar @ Appu. Now, the aforesaid witnesses and complainant have been examined during the course of trial. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It appears from the testimony of the Investigating Officer that statements of eye-witnesses namely- Swati and Ranu have been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C after a great delay. It is submitted that other co-accused persons of this case have been granted benefit of bail by this court. Charge-sheet has been filed and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest & further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for complainant vehemently opposes the bail application. It is submitted that prayer of bail made by the petitioners was declined by this court after considering the testimony of eye-witnesses namely- Swati and Ranu. It is further submitted that there is no [2025:RJ-JP:10354] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-15002/2024] material change in circumstances after rejection of the earlier bail applications. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, as also considering the testimony of aforesaid eye-witnesses and Investigating Officer, I do not find any good ground to change my earlier view. 7. Accordingly, these bail applications are dismissed. 8. However, considering the period of incarceration, learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial at earliest. 9. The observations made herein above is only for decision of the instant bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /16-17