[2025:RJ-JP:15135] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4517/2025 Nishant S/o Satish, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Nangli Pathan, Police Station Kishangarhbas, District Khairthal, Tijara Rajasthan (Currently In Sub Jail Kishangarhbas). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shivam Sharma, Adv., with Mr. Ravi Kumar Yadav, Adv., for Mr. Harendra Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 03/04/2025 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.388/2024 registered at Police Station Kishangarh Bas, District Khairthal-Tijara for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 109(1), 3(5) & 115(2) of BNS, 2023. Later on, Police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. According to postmortem report, cause of death is head injury which according to the testimony of eye-witness- Mohar Pal has been attributed to co-accused- Ajay. Counsel submits that omnibus allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. It has been alleged in the FIR that six persons assaulted the deceased but during the course of investigation, call location of two persons were not found at the place of incident and as such it was observed by the Investigating Agency that they were not [2025:RJ-JP:15135] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4517/2025] involved in the incident. Counsel submits that call location of the petitioner was also not found at the place of incident. It is submitted that real brother of the deceased who is lodger of the FIR has been declared hostile by the prosecution as he has not supported the prosecution case. Counsel further submits that other co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court. Charge-sheet has already been filed and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since 06.08.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner is duly named in the FIR and he actively participated in commission of crime. It is further submitted that apart from head injury, five other injuries have also been found on the person of the deceased. 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, as also looking to the material made available in the form of charge-sheet, role attributed to the petitioner, so also considering the statement of eye witness namely – Mohar Pal and the fact that complainant of this case has been declared hostile; 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. [2025:RJ-JP:15135] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4517/2025] 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Nishant S/o Satish 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. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner, as directed above. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 9. If breach of any of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court. 10. The observation made herein above is 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 MADAN/295