Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6870 (RAJ)

YOGESH KUMAR VERMA S/O BABULAL VERMA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/2673/2026 · 2026-03-24

Ganesh Ram Meena

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:12311] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Third Bail Application No. 2673/2026 Yogesh Kumar Verma S/o Babulal Verma, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Gram Ronija Pahad, Police Station Laxmangarh, District Alwar (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In District Jail, Alwar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Laxman Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 24/03/2026 1. The petitioner has filed this third bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S., arising out of F.I.R. No.383/2023 registered with the Police Station Laxmangarh (Alwar), District Alwar for offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. 2. Heard. 3. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material made available on record, including the statement of witnesses of recovery memo of the pieces of the mobile phone of the deceased, which are said to have been recovered at the instance of the petitioner. [2026:RJ-JP:12311] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-2673/2026] 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner is trying to convince the Court as regards the contradiction in the statements of recovery witnesses PW-15 and PW-16. 5. On perusal of the statements of the recovery witnesses i.e. PW-15 and PW-16, it is revealed that they have nowhere denied that pieces of mobile of deceased are recovered at the instance of the petitioner. Though, there may be certain contradiction of variation in their statements, however, such variation of contradiction cannot be appreciated at this stage. 6. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidence on record, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly this third bail application is dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /6