[2025:RJ-JP:20649] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 6107/2025 Manish S/o Rajkumar, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Banvirpur Police Station Khushkhera District Khairthal-Tijara. (Presently The Accused Is In Judicial Custody In Central Alwar). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 15/05/2025 1. The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No.520/2023 registered at Police Station Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tizara for the offences under Sections 458, 459 and 380 IPC. 2. First bail application for the accused-petitioner bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9137/2024 was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 25.09.2024 with liberty to file fresh bail application at appropriate stage. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner is a young boy of aged about 22 years and he has been implicated in this case with the aid of Section 149 IPC. He further submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 19.12.2023 and till date only one prosecution witness has been examined. [2025:RJ-JP:20649] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-6107/2025] 4. Learned counsel also submits that though the Police has placed on record the CCTV footage of the alleged incident but in description given in the charge-sheet it has not been specifically mentioned that the accused-petitioner is seen in the CCTV footage or not. He also submits that the maximum injuries sustained by the injured are abrasion and none of the injuries have been opined to be dangerous to life, therefore, no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submits that the allegation against the accused-petitioner is of entering in the house of the complainant party at about 3-4:00 AM and gave such a hard beating from which as many as 31 injuries have been sustained by 5 persons, out of which, 9 have been opined to be grievous in nature. He further submits that there are CCTV footage of the incident which clearly shows that the accused-petitioner is involved in the alleged incident. 6. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perussed the material available on record. 7. The allegations against the accused-petitioner are that he alongwith co-accused went to the house of the complainant party at about 3-4:00 AM and made an attack on the complainant party. In the said incident 5 persons have sustained injuries from the complainant side. The injured-Mukesh has sustained 13 injuries, out of which, 3 have been grievous in nature, injured-Suresh has sustained 5 injuries, out of which, 2 have been grievous in nature, injured-Sandeep @ Pradeep has sustained 6 injuries, out of which, 1 is grievous in nature, injured-Suman has sustained 5 injuries, [2025:RJ-JP:20649] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-6107/2025] out of which, 3 have been grievous in nature and injured-Smt. Kamlesh has sustained has sustained two injuries. 8. Subsequent to the X-ray report, the opinion was sought from Station House Officer, Police Station Kotkasim, District Khairthal- Tizara whether the grievous injuries sustained by the complainant party are dangerous to life or not. Vide order dated 13.03.2024, the SHO Police Station Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tizara was sought opinion from CHC Kotkasim as regards the nature of injuries. The Medical Board constituted by three Medical Officers gave its opinion on 13.03.2024 itself and said that the injury No.3 sustained by the injured-Mukesh is endangerous for life, injury No.1 sustained by the injured-Suresh is endangerous for life, injury No.1 sustained by the injured-Smt. Suman is endangerous for life, and injury No.4 sustained by the injured Sandeep @ Pradeep is also endangerous for life. 9. The Court has also gone through the order-sheets of the learned trial Court as regards the recording of statements of the accused-petitioner about delay in trial proceedings. 10. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case including proof and nature of the injuries, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 12. Accordingly, this second bail application is dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /11