[2025:RJ-JP:15273] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 3002/2025 Ramkuwaar Meena S/o Biharilal Meena, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Harnaavda, Police Station Atru, District Baran (Raj.). (Presently Confined In District Jail, Baran) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 10/03/2025 1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.347/2023 registered at Police Station Baran, District Baran for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 34 IPC. After completion of invetigation, charge sheet has been filed for offences under Sections 302, 34 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms, Act. 2. Vide order dated 14.11.2024, first bail application (No.11605/2024) filed on behalf of the accused petitioner was dismissed. However, liberty was granted to renew the prayer of bail after recording statement of the recovery officer at trial. Now, court testimony of such witness has been recorded and hence, this second bail application. [2025:RJ-JP:15273] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3002/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that eyewitness Umesh Nagar (PW.3) and Hansraj (PW.5) have been declared hostile and both have not supported the prosecution case. It is also submitted that bail application of the co-accused Rajendra Meena @ Raju Mundala has been accepted by this Court vide order dated 14.08.2024. The petitioner is in custody since 08.06.2023 and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Further custody would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. It is contended that mere fact that the eyewitnesses have not supported the prosecution case is not enough to assume innocence of the petitioner particularly when there are other incriminating circumstances available against him. She submits that allegation of firing gunshot is against the accused petitioner and the case of the present petitioner is distinguishable from the case of accused petitioner Rajendra Meena. She also contends that weapon of offence has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner. She submits that as per the report of the ballistic expert, the gunshot was fired by the same weapon of offence, which was recovered at the instance of the accused petitioner. She thus, prays that the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced by both the parties as also the fact that allegation of firing gunshot is against the present petitioner; weapon of offence has been recovered at [2025:RJ-JP:15273] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3002/2025] the instance of the petitioner and considering the ballistic expert report, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, this second bail application is dismissed. 7. The observation made herein is only for decision of the bail application and would not prejudice trial in any manner. However, the trial court is requested to expedite the trial. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /733