HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IInd Bail Application No. 5783/2025 Madanlal Saini S/o Gajanad Saini, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Shyamwalo Ki Dhani, Rohit Public School Ke Pas, Jamdoli, Police Station Jaisinghpura Khor, Jaipur North (At Present Lodged In The Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nonit Hatila For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rhishiraj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Aman Agarwal, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 06/05/2025 1. The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 242/2024 registered at Police Station Jaisinghpura Khor, District Jaipur City (North), for the offence(s) under Sections 323 and 341 of IPC. 2 It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 02.12.2024, after examining the injured witness Kishanlal and other material witnesses. After dismissal of the first bail application trial court has recorded the statement of injured witness PW-2 and PW-6 medical Jurist Hanuman Ram. The statement of PW-2, is not believable as (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5783/2025] he has denied the fact that police recorded his statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is also contended that the incident occurred was not premeditated and occurred suddenly due to dispute arose between the petitioner and injured as a result of minor vehicle accident. Further the injury sustained to injured Kishanlal Saini was not opined to be dangerous to life by the concerned medical jurist, when the petitioner was first examined. Thereafter the police sought information from the medical jurist and medical jurist has opined the injury caused to Kishanlal Saini at his head, dangerous to life. It is also contended that medical jurist did not go through the entire medical report pertaining to injured Kishanlal Saini and in his cross-examination has admitted that he has not seen the other medical documents for which injured was treated. The act of the petitioner was not premeditated rather it happened suddenly. The accused-petitioner is in custody since 19.06.2024 and the trial of the case will take considerable time, therefore, the second bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and contended that the first bail application of the accused-petitioner was dismissed after considering the nature of the injury caused to injured Kishanlal. The injured Kishanlal in his deposition before the court has corroborated the prosecution story and specifically stated that petitioner caused head injury with the aid of rod, as a result of injury, the injured sustained fracture in his head and craniotomy was conducted. The injured remained hospitalised for almost 15 days and the concerned medial jurist after examining the x-ray report has opined the injury to be dangerous to life. At (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5783/2025] the first instance, it was not possible for the concerned medical jurist to render his specific opinion regarding injury caused at head, as the opinion was kept reserved for seeking x-ray report. After receiving the x-ray report medical jurist has opined injuries to be dangerous to life. It is contended that apart from the injury at his head, injured sustained fracture of fibula bone, therefore considering the above fact, bail application of the accused- petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on the record. 5. First bail application of the petitioner was dismissed, considering the nature of the injuries caused to the injured Kishanlal. The injured Kishanlal in his deposition before the trial court has corroborated the prosecution story, at this juncture it is not apposite for the court to minutely scrutinized the statement of injured witness. The concerned medical jurist opined the injuries caused to injured at his head as dangerous to life and further the injured also sustained fracture of his right leg, therefore, considering the above facts, this court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, the second bail application preferred by the accused-petitioner is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J ashu /4