[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chella Ram @ Chaina vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:16057) on 7 April, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:16057]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 6847/2025
Chella Ram @ Chaina S/o Kaluram, Aged About 28 Years,
Resident Of Nya Ganv, Pali Rajasthan. (Presently Lodged At
District Jail Pali)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Vimla Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
Mr. Prithvi Raj Singh Balot for
complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
07/04/2026
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.178/2022 registered at Police Station Transport
Nagar, District Pali, for the offences under Sections 302, 449, 120-
B/34 of IPC.
2. The second application for bail (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous
Bail Application No.283/2025) preferred by the petitioner came to
be dismissed as not pressed by this Court vide order dated
17.03.2025.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned
counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, the petitioner
hatched a criminal conspiracy along with co-accused persons and
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 04:43:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16057] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-6847/2025]
committed murder of Munaram ji by inflicting several injuries on
his body with a sharp edged weapon. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that there is no direct or corroboratory
evidence available on record which establishes complicity of the
petitioner in commission of the alleged offence. Learned counsel
further submitted that neither the petitioner has been named in
the FIR nor there is any last seen evidence against the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel further submitted that prosecution
witnesses (P.W.07-09) have not supported the prosecution story
and have turned hostile.
5. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is
behind bars since long; investigation in the matter is concluded;
no recovery is due to be made from the present petitioner; and
the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time to conclude,
therefore, he may be released on bail.
6. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail
application. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that key
evidence including blood stained lathi and clothes of the petitioner
have been recovered by the investigating agency at the instance
of the present petitioner, therefore, complicity of the petitioner
cannot be ruled out at this stage. In view of the seriousness of the
offences committed by the present petitioner, he does not deserve
to be enlarged on bail.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material
available on record.
8. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case and after perusing the material as made
available on record, this Court prima facie finds that the allegation
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 04:43:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16057] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-6847/2025]
levelled against the present petitioner is of murdering one
Munaram ji by inflicting several injuries from a sharp edged
weapon.
9. In the opinion of this Court, the recovery of blood stained
lathi and blood stained clothes of the petitioner affected by the
investigating agency at the instance of the present petitioner
indicate his complicity in commission of the offence. The FSL
report dated 12.04.2024 reveals that on the packet marked 'G'
(lathi) recovered from the petitioner, human blood was detected.
Further, the result of analysis of DNA examination is 'Male DNA'
profile obtained.
10. This Court also prima facie finds that this is the third bail
application filed by the petitioner without there being any change
in circumstances. It is settled law that successive bail applications
are maintainable only when there is a change in circumstance or
when there are other extreme reasons to justify the permissibility
thereof.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of
Maharashtra V. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao" reported in
AIR 1989 SC 2296 has held that successive bail application can
be entertained by the Court when substantial change is
established by the accused, which would entitle him forgetting bail
in successive bail application. The Court should not pass the order
of releasing accused on bail in successive bail application merely
establishing some cosmetic change between time gap of two
applications. There should be drastic change during the period
between the two applications which would entitle the accused for
bail.
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 04:43:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16057] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-6847/2025]
12. In the case of "Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh
Ranjana @ Pappu Yadav & Anr." reported in AIR 2004 SC
1866, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Court before
entertaining such successive bail application must consider the
reasons and grounds on which, the earlier bail applications were
rejected. When a successive bail application comes before the
Court, it is duty of the Court to first record as to what were the
fresh grounds and/or change in circumstances, which persuaded it
to take a view different from one taken in earlier orders.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Kalyan Chandra
Shekhar (Supra)" also held that successive bail application
cannot be entertained only on the ground that the accused is in
custody for a long period.
14. In the present case, however, no such circumstances have
come forth to permit consideration of the present bail application
which is the third bail application filed by the petitioner with a
prayer for regular bail.
15. This Court, on a careful perusal of the case file, does not find
any change in circumstances warranting fresh application of mind
on the grounds raised by the petitioner in the present bail
application. In the opinion of this Court, enlarging the petitioner
on bail, when the trial against him has progressed substantively,
would impede the progress of trial. Hence, this Court is not
inclined to release the petitioner on bail
16. Consequently this third application for bail under Section 483
BNSS filed on behalf on the petitioner deserves to be and is hereby
dismissed.
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 04:43:05 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16057] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-6847/2025]
17. It is, however, made clear that the observations made /
findings recorded hereinabove are for limited purpose of
adjudication of instant bail application and the trial court below
shall not get prejudiced from the same.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
195-divya/-
(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 04:43:05 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
