[2025:RJ-JP:33592] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8019/2025 1. Ranjeet Singh S/o Shri Bachusing, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Khohari, Police Station Sadar Deeg, District Deeg. (Loged In District Jail Dholpur) 2. Satveer Singh S/o Netram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Vil- lage Khohari, Police Station Sadar Deeg, District Deeg. (Loged In Sub Jail, Deeg, Bharatpur). ----Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan, through its PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amar Kumar Ms. Savita Nathawat For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP Mr. Vedant Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 01/08/2025 1. The instant bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.21/2025 registered at Police Station Sadar Deeg, District Deeg for the offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 109(1) & 331(8) of BNS. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 109(1), 331(8), 118(2) & 61(2)(a) of BNS & Sections 3/25(6) & 3/27 of Arms Act. [2025:RJ-JP:33592] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-8019/2025] 2. Shri V.R. Bajwa, learned Senior Counsel assisted with Shri Amar Kumar and Ms. Savita Nathawat representing the petitioners submits that accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. He fervently and vehemently submits that according to the prosecution story, two different incidents have been mentioned in this case in which the investigating agency has not considered the first incident to be correct and in the subsequent incident only the presence of the petitioners at the spot have been shown. He also argues that no specific act of the petitioners have been mentioned in the charge sheet and simple presence of the petitioners as a silent spectator have been shown in the charge sheet. He further submits that it is admitted case of the prosecution that petitioners have not caused any injury on the person of deceased or any other injured. It is submitted that prosecution has filed charge sheet against the petitioners with the aid of section 149 of IPC. It has also been argued that another person like them who was present at the scene of the incident was not considered involved in the incident by the investigating agency. He submits that petitioners are in custody since 03.04.2025 & 05.03.2025 respectively. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. Looking to the long list of prosecution witnesses, trial will take long considerable time in its conclusion. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the bail application. They submit that the petitioners are not entitled to get bail only because the investigating agency has considered the first incident suspicious. [2025:RJ-JP:33592] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-8019/2025] The petitioners have an active role in causing the incident and they were present at the time of the incident, which happened at night, along with other accused including the weapon like Lathi. In the said incident, one person has died and one person's leg has been amputated. As far as the exoneration of the other person by the investigating agency is concerned, it is stated that appropriate legal remedies are being taken by the complainant party in this regard. The petitioners’ presence at the scene of the incident with a weapon at night reflects his criminal mindset. Learned counsel for the complainant also argues that the case is still in its initial stage before the trial court. 4. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, as also considering the material available on record, especially the fact that the petitioners were present at the place of incident, which is the house of the deceased, at night along with sticks while other accused were armed with firearms and in this incident, one person has died and the other is seriously injured and the case is still in the initial stage of trial, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed. 5. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed. 5. The observation made hereinabove is only for disposal of the instant bail application and would not prejudice trial in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /213