Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 4445 (RAJ)

DHANWAN ALIAS MONU S/O SATISH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/1313/2025 · 2025-02-28

Anil Kumar Upman

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:10302] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1313/2025 Dhanwan Alias Monu S/o Satish, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Jatwara Khurd, Police Station Mantown, Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In District Jail, Sawai Madhopur). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Singh Tomar, Adv., for Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Kumar Saini, PP with Mr. Shubham Sain, AAAG and Mr. Prem Chand Dewanda, Adv., with Mr. Rahul Singh, Adv., for complainant. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 28/02/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.251/2024 registered at Police Station Mantown, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 140(1), 142, 103(1) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. Later on, Police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further argues that charge-sheet has already been filed and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. He contends that the petitioner is in custody since 24.07.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. [2025:RJ-JP:10302] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-1313/2025] 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. They submit that the petitioner is duly named in the FIR. According to the statement of one police personnel namely Arvind Kumar, it appears that deceased was lastly seen in the company of three persons namely Jitu Gurjar S/o Devpal, Monu S/o Satish Shrivastav (petitioner herein) and Sonu Mali soon thereafter dead body of the deceased was found near the Hotel Ram-Shyam. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties as also material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, and statement of the police personnel namely Arvind Kumar, who saw the deceased in the company of the aforesaid three persons at about 12:30 AM and after two hours, he received the information that one dead body was found near Hotel Ram-Shyam, which was identified as of deceased, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I do not find it a fit case to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording the testimony of police personnel namely Arvind Kumar. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/94