Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Satveer Singh S/O Netram vs The State Of Rajasthan on 13 February, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 15408/2025
Satveer Singh S/o Netram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village
Khohari, Police Station Sadar Deeg, District Deeg (Presently
Confined In Sub Jail Deeg, Bharatpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Kumar Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA-cum- AAG
with Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
13/02/2026
1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483
of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in
connection with FIR No.21/2025 registered at Police Station Sadar
Deeg, District Deeg (Raj.) for offences punishable under Sections
191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 109(1) & 331(8) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. After completion of
investigation, Police filed charge-sheet in this case for offences
punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 109(1),
331(8), 118(2) & 61(2)(a) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3/25(6) &
2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was
dismissed by this Court vide order dated 01.08.2025. After
dismissal of the first bail application, prosecution witnesses have
been examined thus, this second bail application has been filed.
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 03:45:56 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 08:57:36 PM)
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-15408/2025]
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits
that after rejection of the first bail application, prosecution
witnesses have been examined during the course of trial. Counsel
submits that mere presence of the petitioner has been shown at
the place of incident. He further submits that no special act of the
petitioner has been mentioned in the charge-sheet and mere
presence of the petitioner at the place of incident as a silent
spectator would not attract any criminal liability towards him. It is
submitted that petitioner has not caused any injury on the person
of the deceased nor to the injured. Counsel further submits that
the presence of the petitioner was natural as his house is situated
in front of the place of incident. Counsel submits that similarly
situated accused persons named by the witnesses in their
statements have not been charge-sheeted by the police. It is
submitted that an application to implead them as accused under
Section 190 of Cr.P.C has also been declined by the concerned
Court. It is contended that there are no criminal antecedents
against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its
conclusion. Counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since
05.03.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve
any fruitful purpose.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes
the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. He submits
that the petitioner has played an active role in the incident as he
was present at the place of incident with other co-accused persons
and they were holding deadly weapons. Counsel submits that in
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 03:45:56 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 08:57:36 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-15408/2025]
the alleged incident, one person has lost his life and one person
has suffered grievous injury as a result of which, one of his leg
has been amputated. Counsel submits that first bail application
filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on merits by
way of passing a detailed order and as such, there is no
substantial change in circumstances to entertain this second bail
application. He urges that looking to the nature and gravity of the
offence as well as the evidence that has come on record so far, the
petitioner does not deserve the indulgence of bail.
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 by learned
counsel for the parties, especially considering the fact that there is
no material change in the circumstances to entertain this second
bail application, as also considering the fact that witnesses have
supported the prosecution case during the course of trial as well
as looking to the nature and gravity of offence, but without
expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of this case, this Court
is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
7. Accordingly, this Second 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
RINCHU /19
(Uploaded on 19/02/2026 at 03:45:56 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/02/2026 at 08:57:36 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
