[2025:RJ-JP:11945] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 16497/2024 Mangilal Jatav S/o Shri Dhundhi Bairwa, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Manch Thana Sadar District Karauli (Raj.) (At Present Accused Confined In Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Harshita Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 18/03/2025 1. The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.201/2022 registered at Police Station Sadar Jaipur, District Jaipur (West) for the offence(s) under Sections 323, 341, 302 and 201 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the similarly placed co-accused Dharmendra has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 14.03.2024 and the case of the present accused-petitioner is akin to the case of other co-accused Dharmendra. It is also contended that the case entirely rests upon the circumstantial evidence. There is no last seen evidence against the accused-petitioner. It is also contended that the recovery of mobile was effected from the [2025:RJ-JP:11945] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16497/2024] witness Sanu who in his statement clearly stated that the mobile was handed over to him by co-accused Sunil Harijan. No other incriminating evidence collected at the instance of accused- petitioner. Out of 29 witnesses, 19 witnesses have already been examined and the accused-petitioner is languishing in jail from 18.05.2024. It is also contended that the case is of mis-identity, the accused-petitioner is Mangilal and not Mansingh Meena, therefore, considering the above facts, the bail second application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the second bail application and contended that the accused-petitioner and co-accused Sunil were arrested together, from the petitioner's possession, recovery of mobile phone, blood soaked clothes were efffected at the instance of the accused-petitioner. The accused- petitioner along with the other co-accused brutally killed the deceased by inserting wiper in the anus of the deceased. It is also contended that the case of the co-accused Dharmendra is entirely different, as no recovery of mobile was effected from him and he was not identified by the witnesses, therefore, considering the circumstantial evidence put forth by the prosecution, the second bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. It is alleged against the accused-petitioner that he along with the other co-accused Sunil Harijan caused murder of the deceased by inserting wiper in the anus of the deceased. At the instance of the accused-petitioner, blood soaked clothes were recovered. The [2025:RJ-JP:11945] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16497/2024] case entirely rests upon the circumstantial evidence, at this stage this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, the second bail application of the accused- petitioner is hereby, dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/9