[2026:RJ-JP:30336] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11063/2025 CNR: RJHC020744542025 | URN: CRLMB / 21294U / 2025 Ramchandra S/o Heeralal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Narsas, Police Station Nechhwa District Sikar. At Present In District Jail, Sikar. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshuman Saxena Mr. Krishna Kant Panwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP Mr. Sukhveer Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 04/08/2026 1. The petitioner has preferred this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.236/2024 registered at Police Station Nechhwa, District Sikar for offences under Sections 189(2), 103(1), 324(4), 324(5) and 351(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It was argued that no weapon was recovered from the petitioner, that he was not present at the time of occurrence of alleged offence and that the FIR has been lodged on wholly concocted and imaginary allegations. It was further contended that the petitioner has [2026:RJ-JP:30336] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-11063/2025] remained in judicial custody since 17.11.2024 having no criminal antecedents. No specific overt act has been attributed to him. He also submits that PW-2, wife of the deceased-Rajesh has turned hostile before the learned Trial Court which weakens the case of the prosecution. Since the trial is likely to take considerable time, it was urged that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in continued custody, and therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that it is the case of honour-killing. The daughter of the petitioner and the deceased had a love marriage. The petitioner, along with the co-accused, had executed a pre-planned murder while armed with deadly weapons. It was alleged that they vandalized the deceased Rajesh's car, brutally assaulted him, forcibly took him in a pick-up vehicle, continued to beat him, murdered him, and subsequently dumped his body outside the complainant's house. The prosecution further pointed out that the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR and had previously threatened to kill the deceased, in respect of which the deceased had lodged an earlier report also. Reliance was also placed on the statements of PW-12 Brajmohan, recorded before the trial court, wherein he categorically stated that the petitioner, along with the other co-accused, was present at the scene of occurrence and actively participated in the assault and murder of the deceased. It was also submitted that the bail application of a similarly situated co-accused, Rajendra, had already been rejected [2026:RJ-JP:30336] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-11063/2025] by the Coordinate Bench vide order dated 25.07.2026. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 5. As appreciation of evidence is not warranted at this stage, hence having considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, the material available on record, and especially the fact that the accused has been named in the FIR as well as in the statements of material witnesses recorded before the trial court as also factum of recovery of the pick-up vehicle, coupled with the gravity of the offence, this Court is of the view that, at this stage, no case for grant of bail is made out. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, I am not inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the petitioner. 6. Hence, the bail application under Section 483 stands dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J 93/BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI