[2026:RJ-JP:19190] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15415/2025 Ashok Kumar Verma Son Of Gokul Prasad Verma, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Gram Lodhakheda, Police Station Bakani, Jhalawad, Currently R/o Nursing Officer, Government Cummunity Health Centre Koyla, Police Station Sadar, Baran, District Baran (Raj.) ( At Present In District Jail Baran) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta Mr. Rajaram Chaudhary Ms. Sonali Kharra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP Mr. Deepak Dayama Mr. Pushpendra Kumar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Judgment 06/05/2026 1. The petitioner has preferred this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.119/2025 registered at Police Station Baran Sadar, District Baran for the offence under Sections 103(1), 61(2)(a), 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023 and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (as amended in 2015). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is a case of circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances which led to the alleged [2026:RJ-JP:19190] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-15415/2025] incident has not been established by the prosecution. He also submits that no specific overt act has been attributed to the present petitioner. The only allegation against him is that he was present at the scene of the crime as per the CCTV footage, however there are still discrepancies with regards to the identification of the petitioner as per the statement given by one of the witnesses, Kaushal Mehta under Section 183, BNSS. Moreover, he contends that cause of death was drowning and even the Post Mortem Report does not mention any signs of injury on the body of the deceased. Thus, there is no direct evidence connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence. It is further argued that the petitioner is behind bars since 25.05.2025 and there is no criminal antecedent pending against the petitioner, therefore the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant submit that the deceased was seen sitting the on motorcycle on 17.05.2025 at 03:18 PM, going towards Parvati River, along with the co-accused Shankarlal Bairwa and the present petitioner Ashok Kumar Verma, in the CCTV camera installed at the shop of one of the witnesses, Kaushal Mehta where the accused is also seen purchasing beer bottles, cigarettes and snacks. They further submit that Kaushal Mehta has also deposed in his statement under Section 183 of BNSS that while returning there were only two people on the motorcycle. They further submit that one of the witnesses, Avadesh Meena also mentions about heated arguments exchanged between the present petitioner and the deceased, in his statement given under Section 183 of BNSS. They thus submit that the allegations against the [2026:RJ-JP:19190] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-15415/2025] present petitioner are grave and serious in nature and the petitioner's name is specifically mentioned in the FIR and there is incriminating material available on record, including the statements of witnesses as well as the CCTV footage. Therefore, according to them, the bail application is liable to be rejected. 5. This Court is conscious of the fact that at the stage of bail, the Court cannot conduct a mini-trial, what is required is that the Court has to be satisfied that prima facie offences as alleged are made out. Thus, having considered the submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the petitioner and the material available on record, and after examining all the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the petitioner's name finds mention in the FIR and that the charge- sheet reflects that the petitioner, along with the other co-accused, was seen last with the deceased going towards Parvati River where the body of the deceased was found later on, which was also captured in the CCTV camera coupled with the statements of Kaushal Mehta and Avdesh Meena recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, this Court is not inclined to allow the present bail application. 6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is hereby dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J bmg/7