[2026:RJ-JP:2553] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 12843/2025 Bhupendra Singh S/o Shri Digambar Singh, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Gangarauli, Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj.) (The Accused- Petitioner Presently Confined In District Jail Bharatpur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tushar Sharma with Mr. Wazid Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 21/01/2026 1. The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. on behalf of the accused-petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.150/2024 registered at Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(l) IPC, 1860. 2. The first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 22.05.2025 passed by this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case, that the medical report does not support the prosecution's case and the trial is going at a snail's pace. He further submits that till date, the statements of prosecutrix have not recorded and further submits [2026:RJ-JP:2553] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-12843/2025] that there are material contradictions in the statements of PW-2- Papendra (brother of the accused). Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish the bail bonds and surety bonds and there is no possibility of the petitioner influencing the witnesses or tampering with the evidence; the petitioner is in custody since 04.04.2024; and the trial of the case will take considerable time; therefore, further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose, so the petitioner may kindly be released on bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments so advanced by the learned counsel, since the present case pertains to Section 376(2)(l)of IPC, 1860, wherein the victim is a specially abled/ medically unfit/ challenged woman and in trial, till date total 16 witnesses have already been examined, out of which the testimony of PW-2- Papendra and testimony of PW-3-Bobby Singh reflects that there are direct allegations against the petitioner with regard to committing the offence. Apart from the above two witnesses, the other witnesses have also corroborated the commission of offence. 7. Accordingly, while taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly, the fact that the victim is a medically unfit/ challenged woman and there are statements of prosecution witnesses, wherein direct allegations [2026:RJ-JP:2553] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-12843/2025] have been levelled against the petitioner; moreover, the trial has proceeded substantially, wherein a total of 16 witnesses have been examined till 12.06.2025. Looking to the gravity of the offence and nature of allegation levelled against the accused-petitioner, I do not consider it a fit case for grant of bail to the accused- petitioner. 8. In that view of the matter, the instant second bail application is hereby dismissed. 9. The observations made hereinabove are only for deciding the instant second bail application and shall not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /1