Jitendra Kumar @ Jeetu S/O Vishram Vs the State of Rajasthan

[2026:RJ-JP:18513]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2775/2026

Jitendra Kumar @ Jeetu S/o Vishram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Peerwali Dhani, Aaluda, Police Station Papadada, District Dausa (Rajasthan) (Presently Confined In District Jail, Dausa).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Deepak Chauhan with
	Mr.	Sahil Rajpurohit and
	Ms.	Chinmaya Mudgal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Rhishi RajSingh Rathore,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

01/05/2026

¶13

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.182/2024 registered at Police Station Papadada, District Dausa for the offences under Sections 103(1) and 85 of BNS.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that the accused-petitioner has not been named in the FIR and the entire case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence. It is further submitted that the last seen witness has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution story. It is also contended that out of 23 cited witnesses, only 9 witnesses has been examined till date and the other co-accused

[2026:RJ-JP:18513]

[CRLMB-2775/2026]

(2 of 3)

Lokesh and Deepak have already been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench. It is also contended that there is no marks of struggle on the body of the petitioner and even the DNA is mismatched. The accused-petitioner is in custody since 04.12.2024 and trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and contended that the petitioner was in a relationship with the deceased and the his location was found near to place of incident, despite the fact that he lived in a separate village which is about 20 Km away from the place of occurrence. It is also contended that the petitioner was in continuous contact with the deceased even prior to the commission of offence, the accusedpetitioner and the deceased were married at the relevant time, therefore, considering the gravity of the offence, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed.

¶20

Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. It is not desirable to express anything on the merits of the case. Considering, the fact that the case of the prosecution entirely rests upon the circumstantial evidence, the specific allegation against the petitioner that he was in a relationship with the deceased and on the fateful day, he went to place of residence of the deceased and thereafter smothered her to death. The location of the petitioner was found near the place of occurrence, accused-petitioner is resident of a different village, the police has also submitted call details communicated between the petitioner and the deceased prior to the incident, therefore, considering the

[CRLMB-2775/2026]

[2026:RJ-JP:18513]

(3 of 3)

above facts, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accusedpetitioner on bail.

¶25