[2025:RJ-JP:48409] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 15148/2025 Mukesh S/o Shri Chitranjan Lal Sharma, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Onkar Colony, N.e.b. Police Station N.e.b. District Alwar (Raj.) At Present Resident Of B-1, B Block, Motibag, Nanakpur, West Delhi. (At Present In District Jail, Dausa). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh Sunda For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 28/11/2025 1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.52/2025 registered at Police Station Manpur, District Dausa (Raj.) for offence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023. 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 The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 08.09.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording the testimony of prime witness namely- Lavanya who is daughter of the petitioner and the deceased. Now, the said witness has been examined during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred. [2025:RJ-JP:48409] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-15148/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that it appears from the testimony of the aforesaid witness that she is a tutored witness and she gave her testimony under the influence of her maternal uncle who is also complainant of the case. Counsel submits that there are no eye-witnesses of the alleged incident and the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, however, no incriminating evidence is appearing on the record against the petitioner. It is submitted that except an extra- judicial confession allegedly made by the petitioner before the said witness, nothing else is available on record against the petitioner. Counsel further submits that it is a settled principle of law that extra-judicial confession is the weakest piece of evidence and the conviction cannot be based upon such evidence. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as till date, only 6 witnesses have been examined out of 19 cited prosecution witnesses. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 25.02.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that ample evidence is available on record showing the involvement of the petitioner in the commission of murder of his own wife. Counsel submits that the aforesaid witness, who is daughter of the petitioner and the deceased has clearly stated in her testimony that her mother (deceased) went with the petitioner and in the morning, petitioner returned alone and thereafter, police informed her about the death [2025:RJ-JP:48409] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-15148/2025] of her mother. It has further been stated by her that the petitioner habitually subjected the deceased to physical and mental torture due to his suspicions regarding her character. Apart from this, petitioner confessed his crime before the said witness. Counsel contends that deceased was lastly seen in the company of the petitioner and thereafter, she was found dead. Counsel further submits that it appears from the post-mortem report that cause of death is asphyxia due to strangulation which is ante-mortem in nature and she died during the period when she was in the company of the petitioner. 5. I have heard 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 in the form of charge-sheet including the testimony of the prosecution witnesses recorded so far, as also considering the testimony of the prime witness who is daughter of the petitioner & deceased as well as looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, this second 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 GAUTAM JAIN /11