[2025:RJ-JP:43500] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12549/2025 Gaurav S/o Shri Netram, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Singhaan Meena, P.s. Sadar, Hindaun, Distt. Karauli (Raj.). (Presently In Sub Jail At Hindaun, District Karauli). ----Applicant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr. Anurag Sharma, Adv. For State For Complainant : : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP with Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Adv.with Mr. Satendra Meena, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 30/10/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of accused-applicant. The accused-applicant was arrested in connection with FIR No. 197/2025 registered at Police Station Hindaun Sadar, District Karauli for the offence(s) under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 103(1), 238(a), 61(2) of BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the applicant is approximately 20 years old. It is submitted that the co-accused, Netram (the applicant's father) has been granted bail on similar grounds by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. It is further submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed and the applicant has been in custody since 15.05.2025. It is also submitted that the applicant is not having any criminal antecedents and the trial is likely to take time. It is lastly [2025:RJ-JP:43500] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-12549/2025] submitted that the cause of death is drowning and the postmortem report does not indicate any injuries, which plausibly resulted to death. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. It is submitted by counsel for the complainant that there was animosity with the deceased on account of the fact that the applicant’s cousin sister was disturbed and harassed by the deceased, as he was having a love affair with her and in spite of warnings, he did not mend his ways. Therefore, the applicant, by changing his caller ID on telephone, called him at the place of incident. It is also submitted that relying upon the witness, though the uncle has categorically stated that the deceased fell into well, no attempts were made to rescue him, which clearly indicates an attempt under Section 103 of BNS. 4. Heard and considered. 5. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, the fact that the case of the applicant is distinguishable from the co-accused, Netram; that there are disputed issues of facts, however, without commenting on merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail. 6. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J CHANDAN /58