Successive bail applications must show substantial change in circumstances to be considered.

Order

16/05/2025

1. This fourth application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.254/2020, registered at Police Station Nokha, District Bikaner, for offences under Sections 302, 307, 341, 325, 323, 427, 147, 148, 149 of IPC.

2. The case file indicates that the 2^nd (S.B. Criminal Misc. 2^nd Bail Application No.8692/2023) and 3^rd (S.B. Criminal Misc. 3^rd Bail Application No.2109/2024) bail applications preferred on behalf of the petitioner were rejected by this Court on merits by passing detailed orders dated 26.07.2023 and 22.03.2024 respectively. While rejecting 3^rd bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner, this Court clearly observed that there is no change in circumstance after rejection of second bail application of the petitioner requiring fresh application of mind.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case, the co-accused persons namely Bajrang Lal, Vinod, Rakesh, Ranjeet Singh, Jagdish and Bhagirath have already been enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 28.02.2021 and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time to be concluded. He thus implored the Court to grant bail to the accused-petitioner.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the fourth bail application and submitted that in the present case, the deceased- Jitendra was murdered by the petitioner and other co-accused persons in a predetermined manner. The statements of the witnesses recorded before the competent criminal Court clearly establish that the petitioner was not only present at the place of occurrence but owing to his animosity with the deceased- Jitendra, had actively participated in commission of the alleged crime. At the time of alleged incident, the petitioner was holding an axe. The postmortem report of the deceased- Jitendra clearly shows that he died due to multiple lacerated wounds and fractures suffered by him in the incident.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that since 2^nd and 3^rd bail applications were rejected on merits by detailed orders, the present 4^th bail application, which has been filed without providing any substantial new evidence or circumstances deserves to be rejected straightaway. It was vehemently contended that co- accused persons namely Bajrang Lal, Vinod, Rakesh, Ranjeet Singh, Jagdish and Bhagirath were enlarged on bail by co-ordinate Benches of this Court before rejection of petitioner’s 3^rd bail application by this Court. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that since it has come on record that the deceased- Jitendra died due to multiple injuries caused to him by the petitioner and co-accused persons, therefore, considering the gravity of offence, the present bail application of petitioner deserves to be rejected straightaway. He also contended that the trial against the petitioner is at its fag end as out of 36 cited prosecution witnesses, 02 cited prosecution witnesses have already died and the statements of 24 witnesses have already been recorded, on the date of filing of present fourth bail application before this Court i.e. 11.04.2025

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record.

7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the co- accused persons namely Bajrang Lal, Vinod, Rakesh, Ranjeet Singh, Jagdish and Bhagirath were enlarged on bail by the co- ordinate Benches of this Court prior to rejection of 3^rd bail application of the petitioner. The 2^nd and 3^rd ba