[2026:RJ-JP:10195] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15841/2025 Banti S/o Nemsingh, R/o Nangla Khushiyal, Police Station Chiksana, District Bharatpur (Raj.) (At Present In Central Jail Bharatpur) ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ved Prakash Sogarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal with Mr. Sahil Hussain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 10/03/2026 1. The petitioner has preferred this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.224/2023 registered at Police Station Atalbandh, District Bharatpur for offences under Sections 302, 307, 120-B, 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 25(6) of Arms Act, 209. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the allegation levelled against the present petitioner is that he committed the murder of Ajay, the complainant's brother. He averred that the petitioner’s name was not mentioned in the FIR. [2026:RJ-JP:10195] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-15841/2025] He further submits that no specific injury was attributed to the petitioner. There is no material available on record which connects the petitioner with alleged offence. Petitioner is behind the bars since 17.09.2023. The trial of the case will take considerable time, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further custody consequently the bail application deserves to be allowed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant Prince (PW-1) has clearly disclosed the name of the petitioner in his chief examination and stated that the petitioner has caused injuries to the deceased with use of firearm. He again submits that recovery of a pistol was also effected at the instance of the present petitioner. Petitioner has six criminal antecedents which reflect his criminal conduct, therefore, the petitioner may not be entitled to the benefit of bail. 6. On consideration of the rival submissions and the material available on record, especially the statement of the complainant Prince as well as the fact of recovery of a country-made pistol from the present petitioner but without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, I am not inclined to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner. 7. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J Chandan/19