[2025:RJ-JP:49391] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12057/2025 Sachin Kumar Alias Tinku S/o Prabhu Dayal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Bhagera, Police Station Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu At Present Lodged In The District Jail, Jhunjhunu. ----Applicant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13942/2025 Mukesh Kumar S/o Bhanwarlal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Ward No. 39, Pipli Chowk Navalgarh Police Station Nawalgarh District Jhunjhunu. At Present In District Jail, Jhunjhunu. ----Applicant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14513/2025 Amrit Singh @ Imrat Singh @ Ramsingh S/o Shri Nandaram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Pulva Pathar, Police Station Lateri, District Vidisha (Madhya Pradesh), Presently Rented House Ghumchakkar Sikar Road, Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu. (At Present Confined In District Jail Jhunjhunu) ----Applicant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg, Adv. with Mr. Noneet Hathila Mr. H. Singh with Mr. Shivam Sharma Mr. Bhanu Prakash Sharma For State For Complainant : : Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. CP Sharma Mr. Ram Prasad [2025:RJ-JP:49391] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-12057/2025] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 04/12/2025 1. These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of accused-applicants. The accused-applicants were arrested in connection with FIR No.108/2025 registered at Police Station Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu for the offence(s) under Sections 281, 125(a), 106(1) of BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicants submits that the applicants are sole bread earners for their family and they are not named in the FIR, nonetheless, the present is a case of circumstantial evidence where there is no last witness. It is submitted that during the course of investigation, subsequently, the applicants were included upon interrogation. It is submitted that applicants are behind the bars ever since 22.05.2025. It is also submitted that in the statements of brothers of the deceased, they have submitted that there is specific admission under Section 180 of BNSS statements made by the prime accused husband, Sahiram. He has taken the allegation of murder of his wife upon him for the motive that he can clear out his debts by claiming motor accident on death of the wife. It is submitted that there is recovery of stone and cheques from Sahiram. It is submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the matter. It is also submitted that the co-accused, Pradeep was also an accomplice in the instant matter. 3. It is submitted by counsel for the applicant- Amrit Singh that neither there is any recovery or any call details from the applicant and there is no motive assigned to him and the story projected by [2025:RJ-JP:49391] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-12057/2025] the prosecution is vague for him. It is submitted that the applicant is not having any antecedents. 4. Learned counsel, Shri Ashwin Garg, has also submitted that that statement of brothers Ashok Kumar as well as Subhash Chandra- Hansit are explicit, wherein a specific role is assigned to the deceased's husband. He has also submitted that one of the witnesses-Divya Prakash has specified the motive which is assigned to the main accused, Sahiram. 5. In light of above, counsel for the applicants prayed that the trial will take a long time, therefore, applicants should be enlarged on bail. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed these bail applications. It is submitted that it was a specific planned conspiracy wherein to earn motor accident claim, the wife was murdered. It is submitted that there is no accidental scratch/ dent upon the vehicle in question i.e. motorcycle. The car which was used as specified and used by the applicants was stated to be without any number. It is next submitted that there is recovery of mobile from the main co- accused, Sachin, wherein there is a video record of Sahiram, wherein he has stated 29 seconds video film, whereby he has claimed that he is carrying out the said accident and for which Sachin etc. will not be liable. It is also submitted that the video recovered in the pen drive is assigned to Sachin. Moreover, the present marriage was second marriage of the accused-husband. 7. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, considering that in the instant matter allegations of serious nature are leveled; that prima facie in order to extract [2025:RJ-JP:49391] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-12057/2025] money/ accidental claim from the concerned agency, the accused- applicant(s) have made the victim-wife a scapegoat to a cold blood planned offence; that upon examination of the vehicle no evidences of any hit/scratch/dents are observed; that the pen- drive in question was recovered from accused-applicant and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and material on record but without commenting on merits/demerits of the case, this court is not inclined to allow these bail applications at this stage. 8. Accordingly, these bail applications are dismissed at this stage. 9. A copy of this order be placed in connected file. (SAMEER JAIN),J CHANDAN /38-40