[2025:RJ-JP:34654] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 822/2025 Mallasingh @ Vikramsingh S/o Late Chagansingh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Devpura Police Station Masuda District Beawar (Raj.) (At Present Confined In District Jail, Ajmer (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 08/08/2025 1. Instant application for bail is filed under Section 483 of BNSS by the petitioner-accused Mallasingh @ Vikramsingh S/o Late Chagansingh in FIR No.304/2023 dated 30.11.2023 registered at P.S. Bhinai, District - Ajmer, whereby the petitioner-accused has been charged under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring FIR has submitted that a report is registered against unknown person and even no person was named as suspect. He further submits that after the report, statement of Kaluram Gurjar was recorded under Section 161 CrPC and in his statement he raised doubt on Pappu Rawat and his family members but he has not mentioned involvement of present petitioner. He further submits that the present petitioner accused is arrayed as an accused as he is a close relative of accused Pappu Rawat and recently he visited the house of [2025:RJ-JP:34654] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-822/2025] Pappu Rawat. Learned counsel further referred PMR and submitted that the alleged injures were caused by Pappu Rawat and not by present petitioner-accused. He also submits that there is no recovery from the petitioner- accused and he has been arrayed as an accused, only on the ground that he helped Pappu Rawat in destroying the evidence, relating to crime. He further submits that there is no direct charge upon present petitioner accused and during trial, 9 witnesses were examined and none of them have named present petitioner for involvement in the incident. He submits that only on basis of disclosure statement made by Pappu Rawat, present petitioner accused was arrayed as an accused and there is no evidence except a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which is not admissible in evidence. He also submits that the trial will take time and this petitioner accused is in custody since 01.12.2023. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He submitted FSL report and submitted that the involvement of present petitioner is established as jacket of present petitioner accused was having bloodstain of deceased. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 5. On basis of report dated 30.11.2023 lodged by complainant Kaluram Gurjar about murder of his brother by sharped aged weapon, a report is registered and matter is investigated. During investigation, it has come to notice that on [2025:RJ-JP:34654] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-822/2025] intervening night of 29-30 November, deceased attended a party at the house of Pappu Rawat and after the party when he intimated with wife of Pappu Rawat then Pappu Rawat got annoyed and in conspiracy with present petitioner accused and his wife has murdered the deceased Pappu Gurjar and thereafter disposed the dead body near railway track. After investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against three persons. During trial, 9 witnesses were examined and we have considered statement of all 9 witnesses as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. Specifically considered statement of complainant Kaluram, examined as PW-1 before the trial Court. 6. We have considered FSL report submitted by learned Public Prosecutor, which indicate that jacket of present petitioner- accused was having bloodstains and same is matching with DNA profile of blood of deceased. Since it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the prosecution evidence is still in progress, therefore, considering the alleged role and involvement of petitioner-accused by police, and looking to the gravity of charge, this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner accused on bail. 7. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant bail application preferred by the petitioner accused Mallasingh @ Vikramsingh, is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/49