[2025:RJ-JP:24141] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4798/2025 Karvendra Chaudhary @ Tutu S/o Sahab Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Basedi, Police Station Laxmangarh, District Alwar (At Present In Central Jail In Judicial Custody Since 23.08.2024). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4799/2025 Arshad Khan S/o Late Shri Taiyab Khan, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Belaka, Police Station Vaishali Nagar Currently Residing At Ballana Police Station Akbarpur, District Alwar (At Present In Central Jail In Judicial Custody Since 23.07.2024). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5719/2025 Maharaj Singh S/o Ramniwas, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Uchhar Police Station Laxmangarh, Distrcit Alwar (At Present In Central Jail In Judicial Custody Since 22.07.2024) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Surana, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Anuj Rohila Mr. Sankalp Sogani Mr. Umang Jain Ms. Muskan Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP Mr. Rinesh Kumar Gupta with Mr. Saurabh Pratap Mr. Girish Khandelwal [2025:RJ-JP:24141] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-4798/2025] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 01/07/2025 1. The petitioners have preferred these bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.0176/2024 registered at Police Station-Narayanpur, District-Kotputli-Behrod for the offence under Section 191(2), 190, 115(2), 126(2), 109(1), 103(2) and 191(3) of BNS. 2. Since all these cases arise out of same FIR, hence they are being decided by a single order. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that in the Parcha Bayan and the FIR the names of the petitioners were not mentioned. Even in the statements recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, names of the present petitioners have not been mentioned by witnesses Jitendra and Parmendra. No visible injury on vital part of the body of deceased was mentioned in the Post Mortem Report. No CCTV footage was captured. It is further submitted that deceased Yashin Khan died because of the delayed medical treatment/medical negligence and such act of medical negligence cannot be attributed to the present petitioners. He further submits that co-accused Deepak Meena has been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court. The petitioners are behind the Bars from the month of July/August [2025:RJ-JP:24141] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-4798/2025] 2024. Charge-sheet has been filed. The trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in further custody, hence the bail applications of the petitioners may be allowed. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail applications. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that as per the post mortem report fifteen injuries were caused to deceased-Yashin Khan. From the charge-sheet itself, it is revealed that accused-petitioners- Karvendra Chaudhary @ Tutu, Arshad Khan and Maharaj Singh in association with other co-accused committed the charged offence and during investigation iron rods and wooden sticks having blood stains were recovered from the possession of present petitioners. It is further submitted that the bail to co-accused-Deepak Meena was granted solely on the ground that no blood stain article was recovered from him, therefore the case of the present petitioners is not on same footing hence the petitioners are not entitled for bail. 6. On consideration of the rival submission and material available on record and deliberating all the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that iron roads and wooden sticks containing blood stains were recovered from the possession of present petitioners and in the backdrop of the statement of witnesses Parmendra and Jitendra recorded during investigation but without expressing any opinion on the [2025:RJ-JP:24141] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-4798/2025] merits/demerits of the case, I am not inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioners. 7. 7. Accordingly, the bail applications under Section 483 B.N.S.S. are dismissed. 8. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J BM Gandhi/73-75