[2026:RJ-JP:25466] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. IInd Interim Bail Application No. 4208/2026 URN: CRLMB / 7460U / 2026 Matadeen S/o Fateh Singh, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Kharetpura (Masalpur) Jamoora, District Karauli, Rajasthan (At Present Confined In Dausa Jail Shyalawas) ----Accused/Applicant Versus State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr. Rahul Agrawal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun with Mr. Saurabh Tripathi for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 08/07/2026 1. The present second interim bail application has been filed on behalf of the accused-applicant under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023, seeking interim bail to perform his conjugal duties. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that this Court vide order dated 28.05.2025 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6909/2025 granted 13 days interim bail on the ground of his marriage. It is further submitted that after solemnizing marriage and availing 13 days interim bail period, the accused-applicant is behind the bars and thereby, he could not perform his conjugal duties, therefore, prays that the present application may be allowed and the accused-applicant may be granted benefit of second interim bail. [2026:RJ-JP:25466] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4208/2026] 3. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has relied upon the judgments passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Bench Jaipur and the Coordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the cases of Rahul S/o Shri Vishambhar @ Kalwa Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [D.B. Criminal Writ Petition No.428/2022] and Ashok Kumar S/o Poonaram Vs. State of Rajasthan [S.B. Criminal Interim Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No. 549/2022] & other connected matter, respectively. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant while vehemently opposing the second interim bail application submit that the allegations levelled against the accused-applicant in the charge-sheet includes the offences punishable under Sections 395, 365, 302 and 120B of IPC, which are of heinous nature. It is further submitted that there are criminal antecedents against the accused-applicant and as such six criminal cases including two cases for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 395 of IPC have also been registered against the applicant, therefore, the accused-applicant should not be enlarged on second interim bail. It has also been contended that in both the aforesaid judgments i.e., Rahul (supra) and Ashok (supra), the interim bail was granted to the accused- person after the conviction and at the stage of suspension of sentence, therefore, the ratio of both these judgments is not applicable in the present case. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. [2026:RJ-JP:25466] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4208/2026] 6. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case; considering the fact that the allegation levelled against the accused-applicant in the present case is of serious nature and the other criminal cases have been registered against him including the cases of dacoity and attempt to murder, therefore, this Court does not deems it fit to allow this second interim bail application filed on behalf of the accused-applicant. 7. Accordingly, this second application for interim bail is dismissed. 8. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J TANISHA/1