[2026:RJ-JP:728] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 13653/2025 Vivek Singh Namawat @ Vivan S/o Shri Devendra Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 1136/26, Gurjarwas Near P N T Colony, Ramganj District Ajmer. (Presently Confined In Central Jai, Ajmer). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Peush Nag, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP Mr. Shyam Singh, Investigating Officer through VC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 08/01/2026 1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.153/2023 registered at Police Station Alwar Gate, District Ajmer for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge- sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Amendment 2019). 2. Counsel submits that the first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2025. Counsel submits that till date, only 16 prosecution witnesses have been examined out of 27 cited prosecution witnesses and petitioner has suffered incarceration of [2026:RJ-JP:728] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13653/2025] about two years and eight months thus, this second bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that no evidence is available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. Counsel urges that the relationship between the petitioner and the deceased was consensual in nature. Counsel submits that there are material contradictions, omissions and improvements in the statement of material witnesses and two prosecution witnesses have been declared hostile. It is submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner, except the present one, and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 17.05.2023 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. Investigating officer is appearing through VC. Under his instructions, learned State Counsel contends that a bare perusal of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses would clearly reveal that the petitioner committed the offence by stabbing the deceased on account of her refusal to accept his marriage proposal. The prosecution has relied upon the testimony of the eye-witness, Anil Kumar Sharma (PW-1), who has categorically stated that he witnessed the petitioner stabbing the deceased. Further, the FSL report lends corroboration to the prosecution case, inasmuch as the blood recovered from the place of occurrence has been found to be matching with the bloodstains [2026:RJ-JP:728] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-13653/2025] detected on the clothes of the petitioner and on the murder weapon i.e. knife. Counsel further submits that looking to the gravity of the offence as well as the evidence that has come on record so far, the petitioner does not deserve the indulgence of bail. Counsel thus, craves dismissal of this bail application. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge- sheet, as also considering the testimony of material witnesses including testimony of eye-witness namely- Anil Kumar Sharma (PW-1), so also considering the FSL report which reveals that the blood recovered from the place of occurrence has been found to be matching with the bloodstains detected on the clothes of the petitioner and on the murder weapon i.e. knife as well as looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, this second bail application stands dismissed. 8. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Manoj Solanki /20