[2026:RJ-JP:25242] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 520/2026 URN: CRLMB / 844U / 2026 Amit Rathor S/o Bablu Rathor, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Motinagar, P.s. Chechat, Dist. Kota (Raj.) (At Present Accused Is Confined In Central Jail, Kota). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sahaj Veer Baweja For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Dave, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 07/07/2026 1. The petitioner has preferred this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.89/2025 registered at Police Station Ramganjmandi, District Kota Rural for offences under Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that in the present case PW-1 Aashiq has turned hostile. Likewise, the eyewitness to the seizure memo pertaining to the motorcycle has also turned hostile. It is further submitted that the testimonies of PW-3 Adarsh Rathore and PW-4 Dashrath Nath, are merely hearsay in nature. According to the learned counsel, there is no material available on record to connect the present petitioner with the [2026:RJ-JP:25242] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-520/2026] commission of the alleged offence or to establish his involvement in the murder of the deceased-Vishal. He contends that out of 19 prosecution witnesses, only four prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Petitioner is behind the bars since 07.03.2025 without any criminal past. The trial of the case will take considerable time, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further custody, consequently, the bail application of the petitioner may be allowed. 4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the following judgments: i. Harpal @ Kalu vs. State of Rajasthan passed in SB CRLMB No.1627/2026 ii. Saroj @Suman vs. State of Rajasthan passed in SB CRLMB No.14635/2024 iii. Arvind Singh vs. State of Rajasthan passed in SB CRLMB No.17046/2025 iv. X vs. State of Rajasthan passed in SB CRLMB No.8877/2026 v. Jitendra Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan passed in SB CRLMB No.1627/2026 vi. Sumer Singh vs. State reported in 20 SC OnLine Del 1189 vii. Hemraj vs. State of Rajasthan passed in SB CRLMB No.1749/2021 viii. Puneet Rana vs. State NCT of Delhi passed in SLP Crl. 1882/2022 (Hon'ble SC) order dated 19.05.2022 ix. Akash Kumar vs. State GNCT of Delhi passed in Bail Appl. No.3894/2023 (Del HC) order dated 03.04.2024 [2026:RJ-JP:25242] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-520/2026] 5. Per contra, Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the weapon alleged to have been used in commission of offence was recovered at the instance of the petitioner. It is further submitted that immedately after the incident the petitioner had uploaded a video on social media connecting him to alleged offence. She further submits that the statements of the material witnesses including complainant and Investigating Officer are yet to be recorded. It is contended that there is sufficient material available on record connecting the petitioner with the charged offence. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances, the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail. 6. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the material available on record, this Court finds that the offence alleged against the petitioner is grave in nature. The record prima facie reveals that the knife used in the commission of the offence was recovered at the instance of the petitioner. The material further indicates that soon after the incident, the petitioner uploaded a video on social media which prima facie reflects his involvement in the crime. At this stage, the statements of the complainant as well as the Investigating Officer are yet to be recorded before the trial Court. 7. Mere because some witnesses have turned hostile cannot at this stage, be treated sufficient ground for grant of bail when other incriminating material available on record and trial is still in progress. Considering the gravity of accusation, nature of evidence collected during investigation and stage of trial, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the petitioner. [2026:RJ-JP:25242] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-520/2026] 8. Judgments produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner having different factual aspects carry no force. 9. Consequently, the present bail application filed under Section 483 BNSS stands dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J Chandan/3