[2025:RJ-JP:22055] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Third Bail Application No. 6709/2025 Bhagwan S/o Ramratan, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Siras, Police Station Baroni, District Tonk (Rajasthan) (Accused/petitioner In District Jail Tonk). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 26/05/2025 1. This third bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.216/2023 registered at Police Station Baroni, District Tonk (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 447 and 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 120B of IPC. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by this court vide order dated 25.01.2024 however, he was granted liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of all the material witnesses. Thereafter, second bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 20.08.2024. Now, this third bail application has been preferred. [2025:RJ-JP:22055] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-6709/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that there is allegation against the petitioner of running over a tractor on the chest of the deceased however, it has clearly been stated by Dr. Rajesh, medical expert who conducted post-mortem of the deceased that injuries sustained by the deceased were not on account of the tractor running over his chest. It is submitted that one of the eye-witness has clearly stated that deceased threw an axe on the petitioner due to which he lost control of the tractor. Counsel submits that police officers were also examined during the course of trial and it has been admitted by them that no blood was found on the bumper or tyres of the tractor. Counsel argues that co-accused person namely- Harinarayan has already been granted benefit of bail by this Court. It is further contended that there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future as till date, only 12 witnesses have been examined out of 33 cited prosecution witnesses. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 18.06.2023 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer of bail made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, material made available on record in the form of charge-sheet including testimony of material witnesses as well as Dr. Rajesh, medical expert who conducted post-mortem [2025:RJ-JP:22055] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-6709/2025] of the deceased, as also the fact that co-accused Harinarayan has already been granted benefit of bail by this Court and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this third bail application. 7. This third bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Bhagwan S/o Ramratan shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 8. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/S-381