[2025:RJ-JP:15613] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No.4776/2025 Sheeshram S/o Bansiram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Gram Sewakheda, Police Station Kishangarhbas, District Khairthal- Tijara, Rajasthan. (At Present Lodged In The Central Jail, Alwar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg, Adv. With Mr. Nomit Hathila, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 08/04/2025 1. The instant 2nd bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused- petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.329/2024, registered at Police Station Tijara, District Bhiwadi for the offence(s) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341 and 307 of IPC. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the first bail application of the accused-petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 07.02.2025. It is argued that afterwards, the police has submitted charge-sheet before the concerned Court and the story of the prosecution was found to be exaggerated and no prima facie case is been made out for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. The injuries sustained to injured Ramrati, Rajendra [2025:RJ-JP:15613] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-4776/2025] and Hansraj were found to be grievous in nature and the concerned medical jurist specifically opined that the injuries sustained to them were not dangerous to life. It is also contended that it is alleged in the FIR that Rajendra has sustained firearm injury at his leg but the medical jurist has specifically opined that the injury caused to injured Rajendra at his leg was not firearm injury. It is also contended that the first bail application of the accused-petitioner was dismissed considering the CCTV footage and call details, wherein the presence of the present accused- petitioner was found along with the stick in the CCTV footage analysis. It is also alleged against the petitioner that the petitioner caused injuries to injured Ajay, however, injured Ajay in his statement rendered under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., has stated that the injuries caused to him are attributed to the other co-accused and not to the present petitioner. It is also contended that after submission of the charge-sheet, the other co-accused Rajpal has been enlarged on bail and his name was mentioned in the FIR, whereas the petitioner’s name did not appear in the FIR. It is also contended that the injuries sustained to Anita, Ramrati, Saroj were found to be simple in nature. The injury at thumb of injured Saroj was found to be grievous in nature. The injured witnesses Ramrati, Rajendra, Anita and Saroj in their statements have specifically attributed their injuries to the other co-accused and name of the present petitioner did not appear in their statements. It is also contended that there is a land dispute between the petitioner and the complainant party for which civil litigation is pending. It is also contended that this is a case of free fight and not a case of trespass or forming unlawful assembly. It is also [2025:RJ-JP:15613] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-4776/2025] contended that the cross case was also lodged by the accused- party against the complainant-party and the co-accused Rambir has also sustained head injury and in the cross case investigation is still pending. There are no criminal antecedents against the accused-petitioner, the accused-petitioner is in custody since 12.12.2024 and the trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the second bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of second bail application. It is contended that the first bail application of the accused-petitioner was dismissed, considering the fact that the multiple injuries were caused to injured Ramrati, Rajendra and Hansraj, the accused-petitioner was a member of unlawful assembly and his presence was found in CCTV footage. The prosecution has filed the charge-sheet alleging the fact that the accused-party after forming unlawful assembly entered into the field of complainant’s possession and caused injuries to Ramrati, Rajendra, Hansraj, Ajay, Revti and Saroj, as a result of assault Ramrati, Rajendra and Hanshraj sustained multiple grievous injuries, therefore, considering the above facts, the second bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused material available on the record. 5. It is not desirable to express anything on the merits of the case, the first bail application of the accused-petitioner was dismissed during investigation, afterwards, the police has submitted the charge-sheet before the concerned Court. The concerned medical jurist has categorically opined that the injuries [2025:RJ-JP:15613] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-4776/2025] sustained to injured Ramrati, Rajendra and Hansraj were not dangerous to life. Further, it is opined that the injury to Rajendra at his leg was not firearm injury. The accused-petitioner is in custody since 12.12.2024 and trial of the case may take considerable time. In the light of the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, the 2nd bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Sheeshram S/o Bansiram, in connection with FIR No.329/2024, registered at Police Station Tijara, District Bhiwadi, shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-11