[2025:RJ-JP:44781] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13930/2025 Makkhan Singh S/o Shri Amar Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Bajhedi, Police Station Govindgarh, District Alwar (Raj.). (The Accused Petitioner Presently Confined In Central Jail, Alwar). ----Accused-Applicant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Non-Applicant Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 393/2025 1. Satnam Singh S/o Dilbag Singh @ Posti, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Dabribas, Police Station Govindgarh, District Alwar. 2. Makkhan Singh S/o Amar Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Bajhedi, Police Station Govindgarh, District Alwar. ----Accused-Applicants Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp, Laxmangarh, District Alwar. ----Non-Applicant For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 07/11/2025 1. S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13930/2025 has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused- applicant (Makkhan Singh) and S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 393/2025 has been filed under Section 482 BNSS on behalf of accused-applicant (Satnam Singh). The accused- [2025:RJ-JP:44781] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-13930/2025] applicants have been arrested in connection with FIR No. 125/2017 registered at Police Station Govindgarh, District Alwar for the offence(s) under Sections 302 & 34 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused– applicants has submitted that qua the applicants, namely Makkhan Singh and Satnam Singh, separate applications for grant of anticipatory bail had been moved. It is submitted that upon arrest of applicant Makkhan Singh, a regular bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) has been filed, whereas anticipatory bail application of applicant Satnam Singh is under consideration before this Court. 3. Learned counsel further submitted that on 28.04.2017, the complainant received information regarding the deceased–Hari Singh’s body being found on a railway track. After a lapse of four days, an FIR came to be registered, wherein a negative Final Report (FR) was initially filed. Subsequently, on the protest petition filed by the complainant, and upon due consideration of the post-mortem report and other material evidence, investigation was reopened and a charge-sheet came to be filed under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It is further submitted that although in the year 2019, only bailable warrants were issued, later, in the year 2025, non-bailable warrants were issued against the applicants. Learned counsel contends that the applicants were never duly served with any notice and have no criminal antecedents registered against them. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.15618/2024 titled as Baseer Ahamed & anr. Versus State [2025:RJ-JP:44781] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-13930/2025] of Rajasthan, directions passed by Division Bench in D.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.382 of 2014 titled as Manohar Lal Saini & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan and Apex Court order in Criminal Appeal No. 3791/2022 titled as Dharmveer @ Sammi Versus The State of Rajasthan & Anr., to contend that issuance of non-bailable warrants is not justified in cases where the accused expresses bona fide intent to participate in the proceedings and there is no deliberate evasion of process. 5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail applications and submitted that the initial negative Final Report was a result of an improper and perfunctory investigation. Upon consideration of the post-mortem report and other cogent material, including statements of independent witnesses, a prima facie case was rightly found to be made out. It is further submitted that the offence alleged is of a heinous nature involving the murder of the deceased, arising out of business dealings and financial disputes between the parties. It is also submitted that the “last seen” evidence, as per the story of prosecution, also supports the prosecution case. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that non- bailable warrants were issued owing to the non-participation of the applicants in the proceedings from the year 2019 till 2025. It has also been contended that applicant Makkhan Singh, being already on regular bail, could have availed the remedy of conversion under Section 70(2) of the CrPC. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the FIR pertains to offences under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC; [2025:RJ-JP:44781] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-13930/2025] although a negative Final Report was initially filed, the same was reopened upon a detailed consideration of material evidence in a protest petition, resulting in cognizance being taken against the present applicants; that there are specific and direct allegations attributed to the applicants; that the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the applicants are distinguishable on facts and, therefore, of no assistance in the present case. 8. Therefore, in view of the nature and gravity of the allegations, the period of non-participation, and the overall facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any ground to exercise discretion in favour of the applicants for grant of bail. 9. Accordingly, the instant bail applications stand dismissed. 10. A copy of present order be placed in the connected application. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/152-153