[2026:RJ-JP:20726] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 7377/2026 Khemsingh @ Khemaram @ Khema S/o Bijendra, R/o Modan Ka Pura Tighariya Current Resident Of Durgsi, Police Station Suroth District Karauli (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined At Bharatpur Jail) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) For Complainant : : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP with Mr. Narpat Singh Mr. Anurag Chahar, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 14/05/2026 1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.51/2024 registered at Police Station Sadar Bayana, District Bharatpur for offences punishable under Sections 143, 365, 302, 382 & 506 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this case for offences punishable under Sections 365, 302, 506, 147, 323, 341, 120-B & 395 IPC in the concerned Court. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail in changed circumstances. After rejection of first bail application, statements [2026:RJ-JP:20726] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-7377/2026] of some material witnesses have been recorded. Thus, this second bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that there is lack of material evidence to connect the present petitioner with the alleged crime. It is submitted that the testimony of material witnesses including eye-witness Lokesh has already been recorded before the trial Court and there are several improvements as well as implication in their testimony. Counsel submits that as per impugned order of trial Court, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. He further urges that there are bleak chances of conclusion of trial in near future as the trial is going at a snail’s pace as till date, only 7 witnesses have been examined out of 24 cited prosecution witnesses. He also contends that the delay in concluding the trial violates the petitioner's fundamental right to a speedy trial, guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is in custody since 08.03.2024 i.e. more than two years & two months. The period of custody is always relevant consideration for grant of bail. When a trial gets prolonged, it is not open for the prosecution to oppose bail of the accused on the ground that the charges are very serious. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. It is submitted that there are serious allegation against the petitioner that he along with other co-accused persons kidnapped the deceased and eye-witness Lokesh and brutally assaulted them and before committing the murder of the deceased, the accused [2026:RJ-JP:20726] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-7377/2026] persons forcibly administrated urine into the mouth of the deceased. It is further submitted that the coordinate Bench of this Court has already dismissed the second bail of co-accused Brahamjeet on merits. It is submitted that looking to the nature and gravity of offence as well as the active role of the petitioner in the alleged crime of murder so also the evidence that has come on record so far, the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail. They, thus, crave dismissal of the bail application. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the fact that there are specific and serious allegation against the petitioner that in a criminal conspiracy, he along with other co-accused persons, first kidnapped the deceased and thereafter assaulted him fatally, causing his death and before committing the murder of the deceased, they also subjected the deceased to the act of urinating in his mouth as well as looking to the nature, seriousness and gravity of offence, but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of this case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, this second bail application stands dismissed. 8. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Manoj Solanki /14