[2025:RJ-JP:30358] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 951/2025 Radheylal S/o Dayaram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Nyaymadpur, P.s. Halena, District Bharatpur (Raj.) (At Present In District Jail Bharatpur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 4970/2025 Manoj S/o Late Ninua, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Nagla Mai, Police Station Lakhanpur, District Bharatpur. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Sewar, Bharatpur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Bhardwaj Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Ms. Arti Sharma, PP Mr. Yogesh Singhal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 06/08/2025 1. These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS., on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.137/2024 registered at Police Station Lakhanpur, District Bharatpur (Raj.) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police [2025:RJ-JP:30358] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-951/2025] filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 34 & 120B of IPC & Section 3/25 of Arms Act. 2. First bail application of the petitioner-Manoj was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 08.01.2025. After dismissal of first bail application of petitioner-Manoj, Investigating Officer was examined during the course of trial. Thereafter bail application preferred by the co-accused persons namely Pushpender Singh and Laxman Singh were considered and granted bail by this court. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submit that entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no incriminating evidence available on record to connect the petitioners with the alleged crime. It is submitted that petitioner-Manoj was arrested on the basis of interrogation of the petitioner-Radheylal and it has been alleged in the charge-sheet that a countrymade pistol which was used in the commission of crime has been recovered at his instance. Counsel further submit that now FSL report is available on record which suggests that bullet recovered from the body of the deceased was not fired from the firearm recovered from the possession of the petitioners and it has also been opined that it has not been possible to link definitely one damaged 8mm/.315” copper jacketted bullet (B/1) from packet ‘E(M.J.)’ with submitted 8mm/.315” country made pistol (W/1) from packet ‘H’, due to lack of sufficient evidence. Arguing the case of petitioner-Radheylal, counsel submits that petitioner has been made accused in this [2025:RJ-JP:30358] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-951/2025] case solely on the basis of the fact that some phone calls were made between the petitioner and deceased and it was found that location of the petitioner was near the place of incident. It appears from the testimony of Investigating Officer that call details of the phone belonging to the petitioner has not been placed on record before the learned trial court. It is submitted that it has been alleged that one cartridge recovered from the place of incident was fired from the arm recovered at the instance of the petitioner- Manoj. It is contended that aforementioned co-accused persons have granted benefit of bail by this court. Trial will take time in its conclusion as till date only one witness has been examined out of 27 cited prosecution witnesses. Petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for complainant opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. They submit that not only recovery has been made from the petitioners but statement of witnesses would reveal that petitioner-Radheylal was with the deceased soon before incident. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner-Radheylal submits that all such statements have been recorded after eight days of the arrest of the petitioner-Radheylal. 6. I have considered the contentions. 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners as also considering the material [2025:RJ-JP:30358] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-951/2025] available on record in the form of charge-sheet including testimony of Investigating Officer and the fact that entire case is based on circumstantial evidence; other co-accused persons have been granted benefit of bail by this Court; trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail applications. 8. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners – 1) Radheylal S/o Dayaram & 2) Manoj S/o Late Ninua shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 9. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /374-375