##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:15287]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3^rd Bail Application No. 15751/2024

Deepak Singh @ Dashrath Singh S/o Man Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Chouhano Ka Khera (Ashaholi),p.s. Raipur, Dist

Bhilwara, Raj. (At Present Lodged At Dist Jail , Bhilwara)

----Petitioner Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Mehra For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP

Mr. Vijay Bishnoi for complainant

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

02/04/2026

1. This third application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.86/2023 registered at Police Station Bagore, District

Bhilwara, for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.

2. The second bail application No.14084/2023 filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court by a detailed order dated 04.04.2024. The order dated 04.04.2024 is reproduced

below for ready reference:-

“This second application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.86/2023 registered at Police Station Bagore, District Bhilwara for the offences under

Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused

the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case.

(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 06:24:33 PM)

(Downloaded on 04/04/2026 at 07:40:23 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15287] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-15751/2024]

Learned counsel submitted that there is no eye-witness of the case and the case is based on circumstantial evidence only. Learned counsel further submitted that in the cases based upon circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to prove the entire chain of circumstances indicating

involvement of an accused.

Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, the petitioner was having a love affair with the deceased who was already married, but the same cannot be said to be a

motive for the petitioner to commit the alleged crime.

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in custody and the trial of the case is likely to consume sufficiently long time. On these grounds, he implored the

Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the

bail application.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that during the course of investigation, the prosecution has not only recovered the clothes containing blood stains in pursuance of the information divulged by the petitioner under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act but a sharp weapon (knife) allegedly used in the commission of the alleged crime has also been recovered at the instance of the present petitioner. This Court also prima facie finds that the place of incident and the place of recoveries were within the exclusive knowledge of the present petitioner. Therefore, looking to the seriousness of the offences and looking to the nature and gravity of the offences committed by the petitioner, this

Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Consequently, the second bail application under Section

439 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get

prejudiced by the same.”

(Uploaded on 02/04/2026 at 06:24:33 PM)

(Downloaded on 04/04/2026 at 07:40:23 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15287] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-15751/2024] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while arguing the present bail application, has raised almost identical submissions which were also raised at the time of second bail application namely, that there is no eye-witness