[2026:RJ-JP:1779] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 15957/2025 Gajveersingh @ Gajja S/o Pyarsingh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Jheel Tiraha, Kaswa Weir, PS Weir, Distt. Bharatpur. (Accused In Central Jail Bharatpur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.R. Goyal Mr. Deepak Acharya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP Mr. Tarun Jain for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 15/01/2026 1. The present 2nd bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Gajveersingh @ Gajja S/o Pyarsingh seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.352/2024 dated 16.12.2024 registered at P.S. Weir, District - Bharatpur, for the offence under Sections 103(1), 61(2)(a) of BNS. 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. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He also submits that the [2026:RJ-JP:1779] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-15957/2025] applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first bail application of the present petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn on 03.09.2025 and now the statement of two child witnesses PW-3 Sudesh and PW-4 Karishma were recorded. He further submits that till dated 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and none of them have supported the case of prosecution. He also submits that PW- 1 Tej Singh and PW-11 Laxman have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of prosecution. He also referred statement of PW-2 Rajendra and submitted that in cross- examination, he admitted that a false case has been registered against the petitioner Gajveersingh @ Gajja. He further submits that deceased want to marry her minor daughter (PW-4) with a 35 years’ old man and the present petitioner has opposed the engagement. He also submits that due to family disputes and unstable mental condition of deceased, she committed suicide. He also referred cross- examination of PW-5 Chatar, who is father of deceased and submitted that there was a land dispute and as the petitioner has refused to transfer the land, so a case has been registered against him. At last, he submits that even PW-3 Sudesh and PW-4 Karishma have not supported the case of prosecution, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application [2026:RJ-JP:1779] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-15957/2025] and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties. 6. On basis of report lodged by PW-5 Chatar (father of deceased) on 16.04.2024 about death of his daughter, allegedly committed by the present petitioner and others, an FIR No.352/2024 dated 16.12.2024 was registered at P.S. Weir, District - Bharatpur, for the offence under Sections 103(1), 61(2)(a) of BNS. After investigation, police has filed a charge-sheet against the petitioner, who is husband of deceased. 7. Till date, 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and we have considered statements of 11 witnesses as filed on record by learned counsel. 8. PW-3 Sudesh and PW-4 Karishma are children of deceased and the present petitioner. The cross-examination of these witnesses were considered by us and it indicate that there was a conflictt between their mother and the petitioner. We have considered statement of PW-5 Chatar, in particular, cross-examination. 9. Having taken note of the entire evidence recorded so far and also the material placed on record, I am of considered view that this is not a fit case wherein the petitioner can be released on bail. 10. The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima [2026:RJ-JP:1779] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-15957/2025] facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicant in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused on bail. 11. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicant accused at this stage. 12. Accordingly, the 2nd application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Gajveersingh @ Gajja S/o Pyarsingh is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/2