[2026:RJ-JP:14503] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 563/2026 Hemant Kumar S/o Prakash, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Beed Ka Jhopra, Chauhra, P.s. Hindauli, District Bundi Raj. (Accused/ Applicant Confined In The Tonk Jail). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Mishra Mr. Deepak Kumar Yogi For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.R. Dhakad, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 08/04/2026 1. This second bail application has been filed by the petitioners under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with FIR No. 16/2024 registered at Police Station Nasirda, District Tonk for offences punishable u/S 364, 302, 394, 201, 420, 120-B & 34 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that the accused petitioner has been implicated in this case and there is no incriminating evidence to connect the accused petitioner with the alleged crime. He further submits that the accused petitioner is in custody since 26.02.2024 and till date only 22 out of total 49 prosecution witnesses have been examined. He also submits that the allegation against the accused petitioner is of putting pressure on the neck of the deceased which resulted in his death, however there is no such injury as per the postmortem report as the cause [2026:RJ-JP:14503] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-563/2026] of death is opined to be head injury which he might have sustained while falling from a small bridge. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that there is evidence which connects the accused petitioner with the alleged crime. 4. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the challan papers as well as the statements of the prosecution witnesses examined so far. 5. During investigation, it has come out that the accused petitioner and co-accused Kapil took the deceased with them in the name of going to one temple (Joganiya Mata Mandir). On the way, by divesting the deceased, they transferred an amount of Rs. 80,000/- by UPI Phonepay in the account of one Suresh Gurjar and on the very next day amount of Rs. 75,000/- were transferred from the account of Suresh Gurjar in the account of Sonu Meena on the instruction of the present accused petitioner. Suresh Gurjar has been examined as PW-15 and he has categorically stated that he transferred the amount on the instruction of Hemant Meena-the accused petitioner and Sonu Meena, in whose account the amount was transferred has also stated that the amount has been transferred to his account as per the instruction on Hemant Meena. The transfer of amount by UPI-Phonepay from the account of the deceased in the account of Suresh Gurjar and from account of Suresh Gurjar to the account of Sonu Meena on the instruction of the accused petitioner prima-facie shows the involvement of the present accused petitioner in committing the murder of the [2026:RJ-JP:14503] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-563/2026] deceased with the intention to snatch money as he was in need for purchasing a car for which he has already executed an agreement with Sonu Meena. 6. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the material evidence which prima-facie connects the accused petitioner with the alleged crime, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, this second bail application is dismissed. 8. However, looking to the custody period of the accused petitioner, the trial Court is expected to conclude the trial as early as possible. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Gaurav Srivastava /5