[2025:RJ-JP:13362] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3766/2025 Jagdeesh Chand Meena S/o Mohanlal Meena, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Police Station, Ramganjmandi, District Kota (Rajasthan) (Presently Confined In Sub Jail, Ramganjmandi) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Rajendra Singh Jhala HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 25/03/2025 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.291/2024 registered at Police Station Ramganjmandi, District Kota Rural (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 190, 115(2) & 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 190, 115(2), 126(2), 191(2) & 191(3) of the BNS, 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that there is allegation against the petitioner of causing injury on the head of the deceased by Iron Kada. It is submitted that according to the [2025:RJ-JP:13362] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3766/2025] post-mortem report, cause of death is not head injury but shock due to blunt abdominal trauma which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Counsel submits that two eye- witnesses have been examined during the course of trial and they have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. Counsel submits that complainant of this case is deliberately not appearing before the trial Court despite the fact that he is being represented by his counsel. Counsel submits that other co-accused namely- Giriraj Meena, Mohanlal Meena, Padma Kumari & Saroj Bai have been granted benefit of bail by this Court. It is contended that charge-sheet has been filed and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since 07.07.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that two other cases have also been registered against 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, material made available on record in the form of charge-sheet including role attributed to the petitioner, so also considering the fact that two eye-witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile; complainant is not turning up before the learned trial Court for recording his testimony; co-accused namely Giriraj [2025:RJ-JP:13362] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3766/2025] Meena, Mohanlal Meena, Padma Kumari & Saroj Bai have been granted benefit of bail by this court and trial will take considerable 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 fit and proper to allow this bail application. 6. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Jagdeesh Chand Meena S/o Mohanlal Meena 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 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. The observations made herein above are only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /59