[2025:RJ-JP:40280] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IInd Bail Application No. 10785/2025 Raju @ Rajuddeen S/o Shri Pappu Khan, aged about 20 Years, R/o Sati Ka Chowk, Sarmathura, Police Station Sarmathura, District Dholpur (Raj.). (Presently Confined In District Jail Dholpur). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Martand Pratap Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 06/10/2025 1. The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.146/2024 registered at Police Station Sarmathura, District Dholpur, for the offence punishable under Sections 449, 302 IPC of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and he is in judicial custody since 28.05.2024; moreover, there is no direct evidence available against the petitioner which connects the accused with the crime; and the trial of the case will take considerable time, therefore, further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose, hence, petitioner may kindly be released on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Evidently, the present second bail application has been filed after recording the statements of two material witnesses, namely, Satya [2025:RJ-JP:40280] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-10785/2025] Prakash and Vidya Devi in accordance with liberty granted by this Court vide order dated 22.05.2025. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case; arguments so advanced by the learned counsel for both parties; statements of two material witnesses, namely, Satya Prakash and Vidya Devi (Annexure-2), from which it is quite clear that the petitioner was last seen with the deceased in his room, and it is a case where the deceased was strangulated, which is corroborated from the post- mortem report, as there was a fracture in the thyroid cartilage. Further, a Safi (cloth) has been recovered as per the information given by the accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 7. Looking to the gravity of the offence and nature of allegations levelled against the accused-petitioner, this Court does not deem it appropriate to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 8. Accordingly, the instant second bail application is hereby dismissed. 9. The observations made hereinabove is only for the decision of the instant second bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /2