[2026:RJ-JP:19816] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 6770/2026 Ramlakhan S/o Lalluram, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Bhopa Ki Dhani Banwara, Police Station Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central- Jail Dausa). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Kharra, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Dave, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 11/05/2026 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.46/2025 registered at Police Station Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 80(2), 352 and 115(2) of BNS, 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. The first bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 20.09.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording the testimony of parents of deceased. Since, till date the aforesaid witnesses have not been examined during the course of [2026:RJ-JP:19816] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-6770/2026] trial and the petitioner is in custody since 11.03.2025, thus, this second bail application has been preferred by the petitioner. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 11.03.2025 i.e. for more than 14 months and till date, charges have not been framed. He further submits that application under section 193 Cr.P.C. has been allowed by the learned trial Court whereby cognizance was taken against co-accused persons, who are mother-in-law, father-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased and they have been summoned. He argues that on account of their non-appearance of the aforesaid co-accused before the learned trial Court, learned trial Court is not proceeding with the trial against the petitioner. He further argues that in these circumstances, right to speedy trial of the petitioner granted under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is being seriously infringed. He contends that trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that while rejecting first bail application liberty was granted to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of the material witnesses i.e. parents of the deceased-victim. She further submits that in these circumstances, there has been no material change in circumstances warranting entertainment of this second bail application. [2026:RJ-JP:19816] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-6770/2026] 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially the fact that while dismissing the first bail application, specific liberty was granted to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after recording the testimony of material witnesses i.e. parents of the deceased- victim and the said material witnesses have not yet been examined during the course of trial, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, this second bail application is 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 MADAN/13