[2025:RJ-JP:18790] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 5505/2025 Hariom S/o Shri Sukhveer, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Usrani, Ps- Kumher, Presently Residing At Gandhinagar Colony, Ps Sevar, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (Presently At District Jail, Bharatpur). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajatshatru Mina For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Gupta, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 05/05/2025 1. This second bail application is filed by the accused petitioner u/S 483 BNSS in connection with FIR No. 290/2024 registered at Police Station Kumher, District Deeg for offences punishable u/S 143, 323, 341, 452, 504 & 302 IPC. 2. Heard and considered. 3. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that first bail application bearing No. 13223/2024 filed by the accused petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.11.2024 with liberty to file fresh bail application after examination of the prosecution witnesses namely; Veer Singh, Manendra, Durg Singh & Sawita. 4. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner further submits that the aforesaid witnesses have been examined before the trial Court. He further submits that as per the version of the [2025:RJ-JP:18790] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-5505/2025] prosecution witness examined so far, only PW 4 who is said to be the eye witness of the alleged incident has not made any specific overt act against the accused petitioner. In her statement, there are general allegations against all the accused persons including the petitioner. He further submits that in her cross-examination, she has stated that the persons who made gun fire have covered their faces. He also submits that the other independent witness named Durg Singh has not supported the prosecution story and has been declared hostile. Learned counsel further submits that it is doubtful whether the PW 1 Viri Singh is an eye witness and therefore his version can not be relief upon. Counsel further submits that the accused petitioner is in custody since 06.05.2024 and several other co-accused namely Kalip Kumar, Luvkush, Sadan, Jitendra Singh etc. whose cases were no more distinguishable from the case of the present accused petitioner have already been enlarged on bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application. Counsel for the complainant submits that during the investigation it has come out that it is the accused petitioner who has inflicted the gun shot injury to the deceased. He also submits that in the statement of the PW 1, there is specific allegation against the accused petitioner of inflicting the gun shot injury to the deceased. Counsel for the complainant further submits that the weapon by which the fire arm injury has been inflicted has been recovered at the instance of the present accused petitioner and also submits that the accused persons who have been released on bail, their cases [2025:RJ-JP:18790] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-5505/2025] were distinguishable from the case of the present accused petitioner. 6. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material made available on record including the statements of the prosecution witnesses PW 1 to PW 4 examined so far. 7. As regards the prosecution witness PW 1 is concerned, in examination-in-chief he has stated specific allegation against the accused petitioner of inflicting fire arm injury to the deceased. As per the 'naksha mauka report' the house of the witness Viri Singh PW 1 is 150 ft. away from the place where the deceased was put to death and the said witness in his cross-examination has specifically stated that at the time of incident he was at his residence and these facts to some extent creates doubt whether the said witness is eye witness or not. 8. The another prosecution witness PW 3 Durg Singh has turned hostile and the prosecution witness PW 4 who is the wife of the deceased is an eye witness and has not made any specific overt act against the accused petitioner. In her statement, general allegations have been levelled against all the accused petitioners. 9. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly the version of the witnesses examined so far and allegation levelled against the accused petitioner and more particularly the fact that the co- accused persons namely Kalip Kumar, Luvkush, Sadan, Jitendra Singh have already been enlarged on bail and prima-facie, this Court finds that the case of the present accused petitioner is in no manner distinguishable from the case of the accused petitioners who have been enlarged on bail, therefore this Court, without [2025:RJ-JP:18790] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-5505/2025] expressing any opinion on merits or demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 10. Accordingly, this second bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided that he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only), together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court or any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J GAURAV SRIVASTAVA /8