[2025:RJ-JP:39963] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10446/2025 Ugrasen S/o Ramswaroop, R/o Village Barailapura, Mauroli Police Station Kotwali Dholpur District Dholpur, Rajasthan. Accused Presently Confined In District Jail, Dholpur. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 11718/2025 Santram S/o Shri Hetsingh, R/o Village Barelapura, Moroli, Police Station Kotwali Dholpur, District Dholpur (Raj.). (The Accused Petitioner Presently Confined In District Jail Dholpur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sagar Khan Mr. Mohd. Shahid Hassan Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Assistant GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 23/09/2025 1. These bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS have been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.260/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali Dholpur, District Dholpur for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 302 & 34 of IPC. 2. The first bail application preferred on behalf of petitioner- Santram was dismissed by this Court on merits vide order dated [2025:RJ-JP:39963] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-10446/2025] 21.01.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of Surendra, Harendra Singh and doctor who conducted the post-mortem. Now, all the aforesaid witnesses have been examined during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submit that it appears from the testimony of so called eye witnesses that they were not eye witness of the incident and they reached the place of incident after the alleged incident took place and this fact has been admitted by the complainant in his cross examination. It is submitted that main allegation of causing fatal injuries on the person of deceased is against co-accused. It is submitted that no incriminating recoveries have been made at the instance of the petitioners. Apart from the above stated facts, it has also come on record that this false case has been instituted against the petitioners on account of old rivalry as it has been admitted by the witnesses that their family members were accused in murder case of family member of the petitioners and deceased was also an accused in that case. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioners are in custody since 28.07.2023 & 01.08.2023, respectively and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. He submits that old rivalry is dual edged sword and prima facie, establishes motive of the crime. It is submitted that presence of [2025:RJ-JP:39963] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-10446/2025] the petitioners along with deadly weapons at the place of incident is well established from the testimony of the witnesses. Counsel submits that petitioners have actively participated in commission of crime. It is submitted that allegations levelled against the petitioners are corroborated by the post-mortem report. Counsel submits that trial in this case, where a person has lost his life is still in its initial stage and evidence of crucial witnesses is yet to be recorded. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially considering the material available on record including testimony of the prosecution witnesses recorded so far and eye-witnesses, so also considering the role attributed to the petitioners and the fact that prima facie, presence of the petitioners is established at the place of incident as well as looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 7. 7. Accordingly, these bail applications stand dismissed. 8. It is suffice to say that while considering the application for bail, deep appreciation of evidence and testimony of witnesses is avoided and same shall be considered by the trial court at the appropriate stage of proceedings. 9. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /35-36