ORDER : 1. This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.424/2023, registered at Police Station Sanchore, District – Jalore for offences under Sections 341, 302/34, 120-B & 212 of the IPC and Section 7/27 of the Arms Act. 2. Heard Mr. Dhirendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Dinesh Vishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Vineet Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rajeev Bishnoi, learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record. 3. Mr. Dhirendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the complainant Tejaram has given a written report stating therein that his brother Laxman is a liquor contractor. On 07.08.2023 at about 5:30 pm, his brother Laxman along with Ramesh Rebari was going to his liquor godown situated at Makhupura in his Scorpio car. The said Scorpio was being driven by Ramesh Rebari. When they reached near hotel Galaxy Paradise, National Highway Tharad Road, goons of Prakash Godara came chasing them in a Fortuner Car and they restrained their way with the said Scorpio and with an intention to kill his brother Laxman, three accused persons fired many gun shot with the revolver. Vasram, Ragaram, Vikram, Madharam, Vachan Singh were also coming behind them in another vehicle who came to rescue his brother. After seeing them, the accused persons ran away from the spot in their Scorpio. Laxman succumbed to the gun shot injuries. The allegation of said incident was levelled against the accused Prakash Godara who caused the murder of his brother Laxman in the aforesaid firing. Earlier also before this incident, accused Mukesh, Tag Singh, Sunil @ Gopiya, Vikky, Kamlesh, Bhajanlal along with other accused persons have made firing on his brother Laxman with an intention to kill his brother. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that accused-petitioner has no concern with the present incident. At the time of incident he was lodged in jail in another case. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. The whole story projected by the prosecution is concocted just to involve the present petitioner in the commission of the crime. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that accused-petitioner has no concern with the present incident. At the time of incident he was lodged in jail in another case. He has been falsely implicated in the present case. The whole story projected by the prosecution is concocted just to involve the present petitioner in the commission of the crime. 4. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that co-accused Vishnu @ Vishnu Khudala has been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.09.2024, passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5946/2024. The Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No(s).2087/2025 filed against the said order has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 17.02.2025. 5. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the accused is in judicial custody since long and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the accused-petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. Vineet Jain, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rajeev Bishnoi, appearing for the complainant, have vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that accused-petitioner has committed a heinous crime. He is actively involved in the murder of Laxman, the brother of the complainant. He hatched a conspiracy from the jail and engaged his goons who are the members of his gang, to commit brutal murder of Laxman. They further submitted that there are 35 cases lodged under the different sections are pending against the present-petitioner and he is a habitual offender. He is the principal accused and the master mind of the assault made on Laxman, the brother of the complainant and in the firing made at his instance, murder of Laxman has been caused by his goons. Therefore, he prayed that looking to the gravity of the offence, benefit of bail may not be extended to the petitioner. 7. This Court finds that in the FIR, the complainant had made specific allegations of murder of his brother Laxman on the petitioner-accused Prakash by his goons. There were previous animosity of accused persons Prakash, Mukesh Kumar and Jagdish Khinchad with and the decased Laxman on the matter of business of liquor and the contract of Paladar Toll Naka for the said reason he hatched a conspiracy of murder of Laxman. As per the allegations, accused-petitioner Prakash has given Rs.25,00,000/- to co-accused Vishnu Khudala for arranging shooter for committing murder of Laxman. As per the allegations, accused-petitioner Prakash has given Rs.25,00,000/- to co-accused Vishnu Khudala for arranging shooter for committing murder of Laxman. For the purpose of arranging money for giving money to goon, the house of Bankaram, who is the brother of accused Prakash was sold through Loonkaran Khatri. The registered sale deed of the aforesaid house of Bankaram have been placed on record. Manoj in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C has stated the factum of murder of Laxman by the gang of Prakash. Basram in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C has stated that Mukesh Khinchad, Kamlesh Godara, Tagsingh Purohit and Vishnu Khudala came to meet Prakash in Jail. Loonkaran in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has stated that the house of Prakash was registered in the name of Bankaram who is his brother. The house was agreed to be sold for a consideration of Rs.60,00,000/- and he gave Rs.25,00,000/- in cash to Prakash. There are as many as 35 criminal cases pending against the present petitioner. He is the principal accused in the present case. He while remaining in jail hatched a conspiracy of committing murder of Laxman with the help of his goons. The case of Prakash is on different footing than that of accused Vishnu Khudala who have been enlarged on bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. 8. This Court finds also that at this stage, when the relevant prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, it cannot be said that the accused has not committed any offence. The involvement of the accused in the commission of offence can be ascertained only after recording of the statements of the witnesses. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused-petitioner. The bail application is, therefore, rejected at this stage.