PAWAN BASWAL S/O SHRI DEVISAHAY v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CRLMB/3049/2026 · 2026-04-02
Sameer Jain
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 5352 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 5352 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2026:RJ-JP:13858] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 3049/2026 Pawan Baswal S/o Shri Devisahay, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Janta Colony, Behind Kanota Police Station Jaipur East (Raj.) (At Present Accused Confined In Central Jail Jaipur). ----Applicant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Agrawal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order 02/04/2026
1. The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 on behalf of the accused-applicant. The accused-applicant was arrested in connection with FIR No. 499/2025 registered at Police Station Bassi (Jaipur City (East), District Jaipur City (East) for the offence(s) under Section 87 of BNS, 2023.
2.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has submitted that there is material change in circumstances since the rejection of the first bail application. It is submitted that PW-1 who is the victim in the present matter has not supported the prosecution story during her testimony dated 17.01.2026 recorded under Section 183 of BNSS before the learned Trial Court.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and has submitted that the statement
[2026:RJ-JP:13858] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-3049/2026] of PW-1 dated 17.01.2026 recorded before the learned Trial Court is supportive of the prosecution's story as the specific role has attributed to the present applicant. It is further submitted that the previous bail order dated 02.12.2025 is a well speaking order passed after due consideration of material facts and circumstances and after considering the statements tendered by the victim in question, therefore, there is no material change in the circumstances.
4. Having heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, taking note of the fact that the statement tendered by the victim in question was already considered by this Court vide order dated 02.12.2025; that there is no substantial material change in circumstances to warrant interference in this successive application and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and material on record but without commenting on merits/demerits of the case, this court is not inclined to allow the bail application of the accused-applicant.
5. Accordingly, the instant second bail application under Section 483 BNSS is dismissed.
(SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/s-166