[2025:RJ-JD:4170] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13092/2024 Anshul W/o Late Shyam Sundar, Aged About 52 Years, Ward No. 52, Ravidas Nagar Ps Jawahar Nagar, Distt. Sriganganagar. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar, Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Smt. Sonu Manawat, PP Mr. Sudhir Saruparia Ravinder Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG Order 22/01/2025 The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 70/2021 of Police Station Mahila Thana, Sriganganagar for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 302, 304B, 120B IPC. He has preferred this third bail application under Section 483 BNSS. The second bail application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 17.02.2023. Counsel for the petitioner submits that material witnesses have already been examined before the trial court and no overt act has been attributed to the present petitioner in the statement of witnesses. It is argued that the petitioner is behind the bars for almost four years and only seven witnesses have been examined till date. The chargesheet has already been presented and no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody [2025:RJ-JD:4170] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-13092/2024] and trial of the case is likely to take time, therefore, the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for complainant vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that there is concrete evidence on record against the petitioner. There is no change is circumstances warranting benefit of bail to the petitioner, therefore, the bail application may be rejected. I have considered the arguments advanced before me and carefully gone through the record. In the present case, the deceased who was subjected to cruelty expired within eight months from the date of marriage and at the time of death, she was four months pregnant. The witnesses Hemraj PW/1, father of deceased and Kamlesh PW/3 have levelled specific allegation against the petitioner with regard to cruelty and demand of dowry. There is no change in circumstances so as to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner as there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is involved in the offence. Moreover, as per progress report received, fourteen witnesses have been examined out of total forty witnesses and three witnesses have been left out by the Special Public Prosecutor, therefore, the present case is not a fit case for extending bail to the accused petitioner at this stage. The third bail application is hereby rejected. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial. (MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J 65-BJSH/-