[2026:RJ-JP:5828] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 2355/2026 Kunj Bihari Alias Toofan S/o Shri Banna Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Ward No. 21, Kumawato Ka Mohalla, Nawa City, District Didwana Kuchaman, Rajasthan. (Presently Confined At Central Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandra Shekhar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP Mr. Naval Kishore Mali HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 09/02/2026 1. The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused- petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 1153/2023 registered at Police Station Kardhani District Jaipur (west) for the offences under Sections 302 and 120-B of IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further contended that petitioner's first bail application was dismissed by this court vide order dated 24.03.2025. It is alleged against the petitioner that he alongwith the other co-accused conspired and caused murder of deceased Ashish. It is also contended that the entire prosecution story is based upon [2026:RJ-JP:5828] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2355/2026] circumstantial evidence and there is no evidence that petitioner was involved in the alleged crime. It is also contended that out of 26 cited witnesses, prosecution has examined only 12 witnesses. The accused-petitioner is behind the bar since 30.10.2023 and his incarceration period is almost 27 months and further trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodiya Vs Directorate of Enforcement 2024 INSC 595 petitioner's bail application may be allowed. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and contended that petitioner's first bail application was dismissed by this court on merits after considering the factual aspects and evidence available on the record. There is no change in circumstances except the fact that further witnesses have been examined. It is also argued that long custody in a case of murder itself is not a ground to enlarge the petitioner, the punishment under Section 302 IPC is death sentence/life imprisonment and the case of Manish Sisodiya (supra) is entirely different as it was a matter relating to Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, where the maximum punishment provided under the act is only of 7 years, therefore, the bail application of petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. It is not desirable to express anything on the merits of the case. Considering the fact that petitioner's first bail application was dismissed on merits and the delay in the trial itself cannot be a ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail as the circumstance in the investigation and subsequent statement recorded during trial [2026:RJ-JP:5828] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2355/2026] are sufficient to indicate petitioner's involvement, therefore this court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, the second bail application of the accused- petitioner is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J ashu /4