[2026:RJ-JP:4930] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal 2nd Appeal No. 3300/2025 Ramesh Chand Gurjar Urf Kalu Son Of Shri Sharwan Lal Gurjar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Badhpeethvas, Sirsi Road, Sirsi Police Station Kardhani Jaipur Presently Plot No. 10, Laxmi Vatika, Kishorpura, Hatoz, Kalwar Road, Police Station Kalwar Road, Police Station Kalwar Road, District Jaipur Presently Gangaram Choudhary Ki Sight, Sumer Nagar Parth Residency, Police Station Muhana Jaipur (Rajasthan) (At Present Accused- Petitioner Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Smt. Bhuri W/o Ramesh Chand, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Kishorpura Hathoj Kalwad Road, Kardhani After This House No. 39A, Sumer Nagar Q Block Muhana, Jaipur South (Since Deceased) 3. Mewaram (Son Of Deceased) S/o Harzi Mogya, Dhanna Sasur Ke Pass, Presently R/o Mandi Phagi, Tehsil Phagi, Distt. Jaipur Gramin Permanent Address Chandalai, P.s. Sadar Sanganer Jaipur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Ms. Aayushi Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 03/02/2026 1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on behalf of the appellant, who is in custody in connection with F.I.R. No.443/2023 dated 21.04.2023, registered at Police Station Muhana, District Jaipur City (South) for the offences under Section 302 of IPC against the order dated 07.11.2025 passed by the learned Special [2026:RJ-JP:4930] (2 of 3) [CRLAS-3300/2025] Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Cases, Jaipur Metro-I whereby, second bail application preferred under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the appellant was rejected. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the first bail application was dismissed on 26.03.2025, thereafter, the statement of the Investigating Officer has been recorded. It is also contended that the Investigating Officer in his cross-examination has clearly stated that he did not authorized the concerned ASI to record the statement of deceased and no direction was issued from the concerned CJM to the Magistrate. It is also contended that the dying declaration was not recorded in a proper manner and has lost its sanctity, as the same is not signed by the treating doctor. It is further contended that ASI-Kanhiya Singh has not been made a witness, the prosecution case rests solely upon the dying declaration and there is no other substantive piece of evidence available on record indicating the involvement of the appellant in the alleged crime, therefore, the appeal of the appellant may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the appeal. 4. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the complainant. 5. Heard and perused the material available on record. 6. The first appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 26.03.2025 by this Court and thereafter, the record reveals that as many as 20 witnesses have already been examined. The case primarily rests upon the dying declaration and the testimony of other witnesses. At this stage, it would not be [2026:RJ-JP:4930] (3 of 3) [CRLAS-3300/2025] apposite for this Court to comment upon the sanctity or evidentiary value of the dying declaration as it is for the trial Court to thoroughly examine as to whether the dying declaration was recorded in accordance with law and whether it inspires the confidence of the Court or not. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-appellant on bail. 8. Accordingly, the instant second appeal preferred by the appellant is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-5