[2025:RJ-JP:34818] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6922/2025 Rafiq Ahmed @ Sonu S/o Shahabuddin, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Kyoladiya, Police Station Kyoladiya, District Bareli, Uttar Pradesh, Presently Tenant Bandri Ka Nasik, Police Station Subhash Chowk, Jaipur North. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur, District Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sikandar Ali Chopdar For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 21/08/2025 1. Instant application for bail is filed under Section 483 of BNSS by the petitioner-accused Rafiq Ahmed @ Sonu S/o Shahabuddin in FIR No.370/2024 dated 17.09.2024 registered at P.S. Jaisinghpura Khor District – Jaipur City (North), whereby the petitioner-accused has charged under Sections 103(1) of BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner accused while relying upon grounds of bail has submitted that on 17.09.2024, a report is registered against an unnamed person for murder of deceased who was not identified from the material found on spot. He further submits that dead body was identified on 21.09.2024 and thereafter police has stepped up the investigation and recorded statement of Dinesh and Nehna [2025:RJ-JP:34818] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-6922/2025] Ram who are unnatural witnesses but they have stated that they have last seen deceased with present petitioner accused. He further referred the statement of Dinesh and submitted that how is it possible that a person sitting as sales man in his shop may remember any unknown person who purchased packet of snacks from his shop. He also submits that police has recorded identical statement of Nehna Ram, who was salesman on liquor shop. He further referred the shoddy investigation and submitted that no test identification parade was conducted from Dinesh and Nehna Ram to identify that petitioner accused is the person who visited his shop with deceased on 16.09.2024. He further submitted that the material on record indicate that PCR van was informed about recovery of dead body but report of PCR as mandated under the law is not placed on record. He further referred statement of wife of deceased Rubi and submitted that she was not aware about missing of her husband since 16.09.2024 till 21.09.2024, till informed about recovery of dead body of her husband. He also pointed out statement of Om Prakash and submitted that he is the first person who reached along with Narendra Singh (S.I.) and Manoj Kumar. He further referred statement of Narendra Singh and Manoj Kumar and submitted that involvement of present petitioner accused is not established from any of evidence collected from crime scene by police. He further referred poor investigation by police and submitted that even mobile was not recovered and CDR is not collected to show location of deceased and present petitioner. He further [2025:RJ-JP:34818] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-6922/2025] referred findings of charge-sheet and submitted that the motive of murder is mentioned by police but same is not proved from any of material on record. At last, he submit that a charge has been framed and trial will take time. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and he submits that report received from PS Jaisinghpura Kor, Jaipur City (North). 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 5. On basis of information to PCR Narendra Singh (Sub Inspector) has visited crime scene with other policemen and found a dead body alleged assaulted and murdered and registered a case. During investigation, the dead body was identified as body of Irfan and further statement of witnesses were recorded and it was found that the petitioner accused who was bachelor was having an eye upon wife of deceased and he tried to be-friend with her and to attain his goal he administered liquor to Irfan and further murdered him at lonely place. Police has identified only present petitioner for involvement in the incident and filed a charge- sheet against the petitioner accused. The trial Court has already framed the charge. There is no direct eye-witness to the incident and the case rests upon circumstantial evidence but except present petitioner no other person is named for murder of deceased Irfan. The grounds raised by learned counsel can be answered only when evidence is brought on record but till now the evidence collected by police point out finger upon the petitioner accused and looking to his role [2025:RJ-JP:34818] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-6922/2025] and involvement in the matter it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner-accused on bail. 6. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, the instant bail application filed by the petitioner accused Rafiq Ahmed @ Sonu S/o Shahabuddin is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/76