[2025:RJ-JP:12580] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3399/2025 Tasleem S/o Saied @ Saheed, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Angravali Police Station Kaman District Deeg (Raj.) (At Present In Sub Jail Kaman). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Chauhan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 19/03/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.603/2023 registered at Police Station Kaman, District Deeg (Raj.) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that initially, FIR was lodged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC against the accused- petitioner. After investigation, Police filed charge-sheet only against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304 of IPC and offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC was not found proved. He further submits that initially opinion with [2025:RJ-JP:12580] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3399/2025] regard to the cause of death was reserved, till receiving the FSL report. After FSL report, it was opined by the medical expert that no definite opinion regarding cause of death can be given. However injuries inflicted on body mentioned in PMR, were within and about 24 hours prior to death and death due to cardio respiratory arrest cannot be ruled out. He contends that charge- sheet has already been filed, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. He further contends that the petitioner is in custody since 06.01.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially the fact the fact that offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC was not found proved; perusing the material available on record in the form of charge- sheet; absence of criminal antecedents and trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Tasleem S/o Saied @ Saheed shall be released on bail provided, he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two [2025:RJ-JP:12580] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3399/2025] sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 7. 7. The observation made herein above is only for decision of these instant bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/S-214