[2025:RJ-JP:49500] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal 2nd Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15569/2025 Dilawar S/o Kanchan, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Police Station Halena, District Bharatpur, Presently R/o Ashok Vihar, Bharatpur (Raj.). (At Present Confined In Central Jail Sewar, District Bharatpur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Singhal with Ms. Saroj Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 02/12/2025 1. The second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Dilawar S/o Shri Kanchan Singh seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.211/2025 dated 11.04.2025 registered at P.S. Mathuragate, District - Bharatpur, for the offence under Sections 189(2), 221, 224, 225, 232(1) and 132 of BNS. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:49500] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-15569/2025] applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed on 09.09.2025, but now the petitioner is in custody since 11.04.2025 and still the trial has not begun. He further submitted that the offence for which the petitioner is charged is not made out from the material forwarded by the police. He also submitted that the counsel who was allegedly intimidated by the petitioner has already expressed before the trial court that he is not having any objection in case bail is granted to the petitioner. He also submitted that when the matter has been amicably settled then the petitioner should not be kept behind the bars. 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. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 09.09.2025, wherein we have specifically observed as under: “On the basis of complaint dated 11.04.2025 lodged by Bhagat Singh, Additional Public Prosecutor appointed in the court of ADJ No.2, Bharatpur a report for assault by 4-5 persons led by petitioner and intimidation by showing [2025:RJ-JP:49500] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-15569/2025] pistol with threat to kill, is registered. During investigation, present petitioner is arrested on 11.04.2025 and a charge-sheet has been filed against him. The material on record indicated that petitioner is facing sessions case No, 02/2022 arising out of FIR No.533/2021 registered at P.S. Kotwali, Bharatpur under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 120B IPC and 3/25(6) of Arms Act. Present petitioner was released on bail in said sessions case titled as State Vs. Lakhan Sharma and Ors. whereas complainant Bhagat Singh is Additional Public Prosecutor and conducting prosecution against petitioner accused. Learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the bail application of present petitioner has referred said sessions case and further acts of present petitioner.” 7. The material on record clearly indicated that the petitioner has threatened complainant Bhagat Singh when he was working as Additional Public Prosecutor in prosecuting the Sessions case against the petitioner. The material referred by the trial court clearly indicated that the present petitioner is facing charge under Section 302 IPC in a matter arising out of FIR No. 533/2021, P.S. Kotwali, Bharatpur. Though the trial court has mentioned in order dated 13.11.2025 that the parties have entered into compromise, but still it is a case where a public prosecutor was threatened who was playing his role as a public servant. There is no change in circumstances as charge-sheet was already filed when the first bail application was dismissed. But till date neither [2025:RJ-JP:49500] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-15569/2025] charge has been framed nor statement of complainant has been recorded by the trial court. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. Accordingly, the application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Dilawar S/o Shri Kanchan Singh is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /14