[2025:RJ-JP:42451] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 7239/2025 Sarjeet Singh S/o Shri Subesingh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Chavandi, Post Nanagwas, Police Station Mandan, District Alwar (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Sikar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 07/10/2025 1. This second bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed behalf of the petitioners herein who is in custody in connection with FIR No.816/2022 Police Station Udhyog Nagar, Sikar (Raj.) for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 396 & 120-B of IPC & Sections 3/25 and 7/27 of Arms Act. 2. Vide order dated 28.05.2024 first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed on merits. [2025:RJ-JP:42451] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-7239/2025] 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that trial is going at snails pace as only seven witnesses out of 129 witnesses have been examined so far. The petitioner is in custody since 14.02.2022 and thus, he has suffered incarceration of more than three years and six months. No fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the accused petitioner behind the bars. Co-accused have also been enlarged on bail. The petitioner is not named in the FIR and he has been charge-sheeted in this case with the aid of Section 120-B of IPC. No clinching evidence has come against the petitioner to connect the accused petitioners with the alleged crime. It is also contended that as per prosecution case, five persons were found present at the place of incident but admittedly, the petitioners are not amongst them. Counsel further submit that entire prosecution story is based on interrogation of the co-accused persons as well as of the petitioner. It is thus, prayed that the bail applications may be accepted and the accused petitioners herein may be released on bail. 4. Par contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently and fervently oppose the instant bail application. It is argued that first bail application of the accused petitioner was dismissed on merits and nothing substantial change has occasioned thereafter and therefore, this second second bail application may not be accepted. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that after rejection of first bail application, the petitioner preferred Special [2025:RJ-JP:42451] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-7239/2025] Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.10511/2024 before Hon’ble Supreme Court but same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to approach the Sessions Court with an application for enlarging the petitioner on bail. Thereafter, bail application was filed before learned Sessions Court. However, same was dismissed. It is submitted that there are specific allegation against the accused petitioner that he purchased 5 mobiles in a very short span of two months and these mobiles were used in commission of crime. Counsel for the complainant further submit that out of those five mobile phones, purchased by the accused Sarjeet, one mobile (make Oppo A16e) was used and recovered at the instance of co- accused Manish @ Bachchiya, who was present at the crime seen. It is also evident from call records that Sarjeet Singh was in constant touch with the co-accused Manish @ Bachchiya, who was present at the crime scene. Counsel for the complainant further submit that sim (No.636734815) issued in the name of accused Rakesh Ojha, was found in the mobile (Oppo A16e), which was recovered at the instance of the accused Manish @ Bachchiya. The name of accused Sarjeet Singh was included in the list of the contact persons of co-accused Kuldeep @ Tinku @ Kady against whom 33 cases are pending. 5. First bail application of the accused petitioner was dismissed on merits and nothing substantial change has occasioned thereafter. While distinguishing the case of the present petitioner from those accused who have been enlarged on bail, the application of the accused petitioner was rejected. Apart from that, considering the role and allegation attributed to other [2025:RJ-JP:42451] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-7239/2025] co-accused, their bail applications have also been rejected. Thus, the argument of parity is of no avail to the accused petitioner. The petitioner also approached Hon’ble Supreme Court and filed special leave petition but withdrew the same. In these circumstances, considering the role attributed to the accused petitioner in commission of crime and gravity of offence, I do not find any good ground so as to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, I am not inclined to accept this second bail application and same is dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Sudhir Asopa /35