[2026:RJ-JP:2039] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 560/2026 Sahil Khan S/o Shri Salim Ansari, R/o Plot No. 48, Juhu Maljhi, Aahatmali Tariyasujan, Khushinagar Juhumalhi, Aahatmli, Post Jabahi Dayal, District Khushinagar (Uttar Pradesh) Presently Resident Of House No. 75/363 Shyopur Road, Pannadhay Circle, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.). (The Accused Petitioner Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 16/01/2026 1. The present 2nd bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Sahil Khan S/o Shri Salim Ansari seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.305/2024 Dated 28.06.2024 registered at P.S. Sanganer District Jaipur City (East), for the offence under Section 307 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the [2026:RJ-JP:2039] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-560/2026] applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with trial, which will take time. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that first bail application of present petitioner was dismissed on 22.08.2025 and now the statement of complainant has been recorded by the trial Court. He referred the statement of PW-1 Ramesh and submits that he has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. He further submits that even he has not raised any doubt on present petitioner for involvement in the incident. He further referred statement of PW-2 Vipin Kumar PW-3 Promod and submits that they both have also turned hostile and not supported the csae of prosecution. He further submits that police has registered FIR on basis of complaint lodged by Ramesh against unknown persons but during investigation he suspected the present petitioner but when Ramesh was examined by the prosecution, he has turned hostile and not supported the csae of prosecution. He also submits that there is no other evidence except the suspicion as expressed by PW-1 Ramesh. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. He has submitted a report received from PS Sanganer, Jaipur East. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties. [2026:RJ-JP:2039] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-560/2026] 6. The present petitioner accused was arrested on 30.06.2024 and since then he is in custody. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed on 22.08.2025 and three witnesses were examined including PW-1 Ramesh, who is complainant. 7. While considering first bail application of the present petitioner, we have observed as under:- "On the basis of report lodged by Ramesh (husband of injured/ deceased) the matter is investigated and statement of Ramesh was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In his statement he alleged that the petitioner accused who was a tuition teacher for his children was having an evil eye and infactuated towards his wife and wants to marry his wife, but when she resisted and refused to accept proposal, the petitioner accused has assaulted her with bricks, resulted into ante-mortem injuries and later she succumbed to injuries. The police has recovered shirt and mobile from accused. The FSL report dated 30.05.2025 reflect traces of human blood on blood smeared shirt of accused but no DNA profile is identified. The case squarely rests upon circumstantial evidence. The status report received from trial court indicate that the charge is not framed till 08.04.2025 and it is a very serious negligence on part of the Presiding Officer." 8. Now three witnesses including husband of deceased and complainant are examined by the prosecution and none of them have supported the case of prosecution. We have considered the entire material as placed on record and referred during course of arguments. 9. Upon hearing the arguments and perusing the record, we have found that the applicant-accused is no more required in the investigation and he is in custody for quite some time. [2026:RJ-JP:2039] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-560/2026] The further proceedings will take its own time, therefore, looking to entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant- accused. 10. Thus, the instant 2nd bail application filed on behalf of the applicant-accused Sahil Khan S/o Shri Salim Ansari is hereby allowed and the applicant-accused is ordered to be released on bail provided he would furnish a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant-accused shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner. (ii) The applicant-accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the Law. (iii) The applicant-accused shall attend the hearing of the Trial Court on the date fixed by the Trial court or as and when asked to appear before the Trial Court. (iv) In case of any violation of above conditions, the bail granted to the applicant-accused shall be liable to be canceled. 11. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court through E-mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/3