[2025:RJ-JP:27013] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 16299/2024 Vikram Singh S/o Shri Ramsingh Shekhawat, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Badoud, Police Station Khandar, District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan (At Present Confined At Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Mahesh Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Tiwari, Dy.G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 21/07/2025 This 3rd bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No. 393/2020 registered at Police Station Shivdaspura, Jaipur City (South) for the offence(s) under Sections 392, 302 and 201 IPC (later on offence under Sections 392, 302, 201 and 120-b IPC were found to have been made out). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He is behind the bars since 08.09.2020. Charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that till today, the trial court has recorded statement of only 4 witnesses and prosecution has to examine 28 witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there is [2025:RJ-JP:27013] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16299/2024] no direct evidence against the petitioner and case of the petitioner rests on circumstanial evidence. Similarly situated co-accused Abhishek has been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 18.12.2020 in S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.15290/2020. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court in various pronouncement stated that if the trial of the accused is not concluded within a reasonable time then he is entitled to be enlarged on bail. Conclusion of trial may take long time. So, the petitioner be enlarged on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (1) ‘Ganesh Madhukar Mendarkar Vs. The State of Maharashtra’ in Bail Application No. 597/2025, decided on 14.02.2025. (2) ‘Athar Parwez Vs. Union of India’ in Criminal Appeal No. 5387/2024, decided on 17.12.2024. Learned Dy.G.A. has opposed the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner and co-accused had robbed taxi driver and murdered him. He further submitted that shoe laces which were used for strangulation of the deceased, were recovered on the information of the petitioner. So, looking to the gravity of offence(s), the 3rd bail application filed by the petitioner be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Dy.G.A. [2025:RJ-JP:27013] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16299/2024] Allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner and co- accused had robbed taxi driver and committed murdered by strangulating him. Shoe laces which were used for strangulation, were recovered on the information of the petitioner. So, looking to the gravity of offence(s) and nature of allegation, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Consequently, this 3rd criminal miscellaneous bail application is accordingly dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Gourav/2