[2025:RJ-JP:11022] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 347/2025 Chanuwa @ Chandrabhan Son Of Shivlal @ Pujari, Resident Of Mullaka, Police Station, Kaman, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) (At Present Accused-Petitioner Is Confined In Jail At Bhartpur) ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg, Adv. with Mr. A S Rathore, Adv. For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Jai Prakash Tiwari, Dy. G A Mr. Harendra Singh, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 11/03/2025 1. The instant 2nd bail application has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. by the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.342/2021 registered at Police Station Kama, District Bharatpur for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 307, 302 and 120-B IPC and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act (later on offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 326, 336, 427, 307, 302 and 120-B IPC was found to have been made out). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He is behind the bars since 15.07.2021. Charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that [2025:RJ-JP:11022] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-347/2025] out of 44 witnesses, statements of 6 witnesses have been recorded by the trial Court so far. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that similar situated co-accused Sahab Singh was enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.10.2024 passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 3613/2024. No specific overt act of the petitioner has been described. Conclusion of trial may take long time. So, the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 3. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned Dy. G A have opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submit that petitioner and other co- accused hatched a conspiracy and they inflicted more than 25 injuries on the body of Devi Ram who died due to the said injuries. Witnesses Ram Niwas and Ajeet had fully supported the story of the prosecution. So, looking to the gravity of offence and nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner the present 2nd bail application filed by the petitioner be dismissed. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Dy. G A and learned counsel for the complainant. 5. Allegations against the petitioner is that the petitioner and other co-accused hatched a conspiracy and they inflicted injuries to Devi Ram, who died due to said injuries. So, looking to the nature of allegations and gravity of the offences levelled against the accused-petitioner, I do not consider it a fit case for grant of bail to the accused-petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:11022] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-347/2025] 6. Hence, this 2nd bail application filed by the petitioner stands dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Tahir/5