[2026:RJ-JP:20435] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 4568/2026 Suresh @ Seesa S/o Bacchu Singh, R/o Phulwara, Police Station Chiksana, Present Resident Of In Front Of G.P.F. Office, Police Station Mathura Gate, Bharatpur (Rajasthan) (Accused Presently Confined In District Jail Bharatpur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avinash Pathak, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 14/05/2026 1. The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner is arrested in connection with FIR No.27/2024, registered at Police Station Chiksana, District Bharatpur, for the offence(s) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 341 and 506 of IPC. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated for the offences under Section 302 of IPC. It is also contended that the material eye-witnesses namely, PW.3 Ramprakash, PW.9 Raju, PW.6 Pohap Singh, PW.8 Kumar Pal, PW.7 Dulichand and PW.11 Jitendra Singh have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution story. It is further contended that the statement of PW.1 Babita is not [2026:RJ-JP:20435] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4568/2026] believable as in the FIR, it was specifically stated that gunshot injury was caused by Mukesh. It is argued that the complainant PW.2 Surajmal in his deposition before the Court has stated himself to be an eye-witness, however, most of the witnesses in their statements including PW.1 Babita have stated that the complainant ran away from the place of occurrence. It is also argued that the petitioner's first bail application was dismissed vide order dated 26.08.2025 observing the fact that the material witnesses are yet to be examined. After dismissal of the said application except PW.1 Babita all the witnesses have turned hostile. It is further contended that the accused-petitioner is in custody since long and further trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, considering the statements of the witnesses and long incarceration of the petitioner, the second bail application may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. It is contended that PW.1 Babita in her deposition before the Court has supported the prosecution story and the sole testimony of the witness is enough to prove the case. It is also contended that at the instance of the petitioner firearm was recovered, therefore, merely because some witnesses have turned hostile, on that basis petitioner is not entitled for bail, therefore, the second bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. It is not desirable to express anything on the merits of the case. Considering the fact that PW.1 Babita in her deposition before the Court has stated that the petitioner caused the gunshot [2026:RJ-JP:20435] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4568/2026] injury which resulted into the death of the deceased, at the stage of bail this Court cannot minutely scrutinize the statements of the eye-witness PW.1 Babita, therefore, considering the statement of PW.1 Babita, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused- petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, the instant second bail application of the accused-petitioner is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-38