[2025:RJ-JP:49071] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 15461/2025 Narendra Kumar S/o Shri Ganesh, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Raigaron Mohalla, Achrol, P.s. Chandwaji, District Jaipur, Raj. (Confined At Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Joshi Mr. Kanhaiya Lal Choudhary Ms. Bharti Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary, PP Mr. Rajnish Poonia, Additional S.P., Jaipur Rural HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 02/12/2025 1. Instant second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Narendra Kumar S/o Shri Ganesh seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.132/2023 dated 25.04.2023 registered at P.S. Chandwaji, District – Jaipur Rural , for the offence under Sections 302, 460 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time. 3. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that the first bail application of petitioner was dismissed on [2025:RJ-JP:49071] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-15461/2025] 08.04.2024 and now the statement of Udai Singh has been recorded by the trial court. He further submitted that after recording the statement of Udai Singh nothing has been brought on record to show that present petitioner is connected with crime as alleged in the matter. He further submitted that the cross-examination of PW-19 clearly indicate that police has collected call details of accused but same is not brought on record. He also submitted that no site plan has been prepared to show that from where the accused have entered into the house. He also submitted that ₹400/- is recovered but same is not sufficient to show involvement of present petitioner. He also submitted that total 28 witnesses were listed in the matter and out of which 19 witnesses were recorded so far. He further submitted that present petitioner is in custody for last more than 2 year and 7 months. He further referred the statement of other witnesses and submitted that all material witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. He further submitted that neither there is any evidence for identification nor of recovery then, the petitioner cannot be kept behind bars for unlimited time. He also referred order dated 21.03.2024 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14954/2023, Rupak Chatterjee Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and submitted that the petitioner is entitled for speedy trial but even after two years and six months the trial has not been concluded. [2025:RJ-JP:49071] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-15461/2025] 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties. 6. On the basis of report dated 25.04.2023, lodged about incident of midnight of 24-25th of April, 2023 about house breaking by night and further murder of father and mother of complainant, and possible theft FIR no. 132/2023 is registered at P.S. Chandwaji, District Jaipur Rural. After investigation police has filed charge-sheet against Soldier, Manish Kumar, Rohit Kumar, Azad Bunkar, Narendra Kumar and one juvenile. Present petitioner is not named in FIR but it is a case of murder of two elderly people Kajod Mal and Manbhari aged 85 and 80 years respectively with intention to loot cash and jwellery. 7. This court has already dismissed criminal revision petition no. 1426/2023 on 18.10.2023 in respect of juvenile “X” who was also found involved in the incident. First bail application of present petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 08.04.2024 with liberty to file after recording statement of all material witnesses. 8. The petitioner accused is in custody since 27.04.2023 and till date the criminal trial rests on circumstantial evidence, as there is no eye witness in the entire case. 9. PW-2 Lal Chand is complainant and he has turned hostile. PW-4 Rahul, PW-6 Nirmala, PW-7 Ravi and PW-10 Kanu have [2025:RJ-JP:49071] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-15461/2025] ALSO turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. The investigating officer Udai Singh (PW-19) has been examined by the trial court and we have considered his statement including cross-examination. Though, material on record indicate that 21 times he was called by the court and out of which 15 times he avoided his presence before the trial court for one or the other reason and on six occasions, he remained present before the trial court, out of which on 1 occasion learned judge was on leave and on another occasion there was strike of employees, but on 4 times he was present for recording his evidence. 10. The material on record clearly indicate that the entire case rests upon circumstantial evidence and court has to consider the circumstances brought on record by the prosecution. The material witnesses relating to family of deceased have not supported the case of prosecution but same is not sufficient to grant bail to the petitioner, as conviction or acquittal is dependent upon their deposition. 11. As regard to delay is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Gurvinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported as 2024 INSC 92, observed that same delay in trial pertaining to grave offences cannot be a ground to grant bail. The accused Gurvinder Singh was in custody for last 5 years on UAPA charges. 12. Herein this case, despite filing of charge-sheet on time, the trial court has examined only 19 witnesses so far, particularly when district court is having enough infrastructure in conducting trial in a time bound manner. [2025:RJ-JP:49071] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-15461/2025] The prosecution cannot be faulted on all occasions and sometimes it is a duty and responsibility of the Sessions Judges for remaining non-responsive to the need of the hour. Sometimes, it appears to the court that the trial courts are facilitating the accused in getting bail on ground of delay. It is a very serious issue that despite good number of sessions court or special courts, we are unable to decide cases on time. 13. Having taken note of serious of offence and also the gruel- some murder of two senior citizens, I am of the considered that this is not a fit case wherein merely family members of deceased have turned hostile, the petitioner be permitted to avail facility of bail. It is a case of murder, so delay is also not a ground to grant bail. 14. The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicant in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused on bail. 15. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicant accused at this stage. 16. Accordingly, the second application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Narendra Kumar S/o Shri Ganesh is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /12