[2025:RJ-JP:14458] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16211/2024 Bhunveshwar @ Bhunni S/o Dayaram Meghwal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Jajor Bas, Police Station Sadar, District Alwar (Raj.). (At Present Confined In Central Jail Alwar). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, PP and Mr. Rakesh Trivedi, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 28/03/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.418/2024 registered at Police Station Sadar Alwar, District Alwar for the offence punishable under Section 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. Later on, Police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 115(2) and 126(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, as there is no eye-witness of the alleged incident. It is submitted that petitioner himself informed the family members of the deceased that the deceased was lying [2025:RJ-JP:14458] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16211/2024] on the road. He argues that just to implicate the petitioner, mobile phone belonging to the deceased has been shown to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner while in the FIR it has been mentioned that mobile phone of the deceased was found lying on the road near Jajor Gate. He further argues that on 31.08.2024, some pieces of PVC pipe were also recovered from the place of incident. It has been alleged that one PVC pipe is shown to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner in pursuance of the information furnished by him under section 23 of Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, (in short ‘BSA’) 2023 (corresponding to Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act). It is submitted that call location of the petitioner has no significance in this matter as his poultry farm is near the place of alleged incident. He argues that trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. He contends that the petitioner is in custody since 01.09.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that not only the mobile phone belonging to deceased has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner but a blood-stained PVC pipe has also been recovered from his possession. Furthermore, presence of the petitioner near the place of incident is well established. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned [2025:RJ-JP:14458] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16211/2024] counsel for the parties, material made available on record in the form of charge-sheet; so also considering the fact that complainant himself has mentioned in the FIR that mobile phone belonging to the deceased was found lying on the road near Jajor Gate whereas during investigation, it has been shown recovered from the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Bhunveshwar @ Bhunni S/o Dayaram Meghwal shall be released on bail provided he 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 he 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. 7. The observation made herein above 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 MADAN/86