[2026:RJ-JP:2857]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Third Bail Application No.

15034/2025 Ajay Kumar S/o Kalu Lal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Suwaliya, Police Station Panwad, District Jhalawar (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In District Jail Jhalawar).

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Chahar for Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

16/01/2026

1. The third bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.189/2023 registered at Police Station Panwad, District Jhalawar (Raj.) for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 323 & 341 of the IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this case for offences punishable under Sections 302, 341, 323, 325 and 34 of the IPC.

2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 23.01.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of Investigating officer and the doctor who conducted the post-mortem. Thereafter, second bail application was filed on behalf of the petitioner however, same was dismissed by this Court on merits vide order dated 06.08.2025. Now, this third bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that there is no specific allegation against the petitioner of causing injury on the person of the deceased. It is submitted that the co-accused, namely Hansraj and Purushottam, have already been granted the benefit of bail by this Court. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 30.09.2023 and as such, he has already suffered incarceration of more than 2 years and 3 months. Further custody of the petitioner will not serve any fruitful purpose.

4. Per contra, the learned State Counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner stands on a different footing from that of the co-accused persons as according to the eye-witness, Modhwaj, fatal injury on the head of the deceased has been attributed to the petitioner and same has been opined as the cause of death. Counsel submits that the trial is at the fag end, as only one witness remains to be examined. Further, earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court after considering all the facts and circumstances and as such, there is no substantial change in circumstances to entertain this third bail application.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially considering the material available on record, as also considering the fact that the trial is at the fag end, as only one witness remains to be examined, so also the fact that after rejection of the earlier bail application there is no substantial change in circumstances as well as looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to change its earlier view and enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. Accordingly, this third bail application stands 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 GAUTAM JAIN/14