[2025:RJ-JP:44778] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Third Bail Application No. 12228/2025 Neeraj S/o Kuwarsain, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Tamrer, Police Station Kumher, District Deeg (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Bharatpur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP & Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 04/11/2025 1. This third bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.755/2024 registered at Police Station Kumher, District Deeg (Raj.) for offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 190, 115(2), 126(2) & 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023 and Section 3/25(6) of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 19.02.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of injured as well as medical expert who prepared the [2025:RJ-JP:44778] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-12228/2025] MLC. Thereafter, second bail application was preferred on behalf of the petitioner when the aforesaid witnesses were examined however, same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 20.05.2025. Now, this third bail application has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that after rejection of the second bail application, there is substantial change in circumstances. It is submitted that ballistic report does not support the prosecution case and it has been opined that it is not possible to link the pistol allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner with the bullet recovered from the body of the injured. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 03.11.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that second bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this court on merits after considering the testimony of injured as well as medical expert who examined the injured and as such, there is no substantial change in circumstances. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the material available on record, as also considering the fact that after dismissal of second bail application, there is no substantial change [2025:RJ-JP:44778] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-12228/2025] in circumstances so as to allow this third bail application as well as looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this court does not find any good ground to change its earlier view. 7. Accordingly, this third bail application stands dismissed. 8. 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 LALIT MOHAN /4