[2025:RJ-JP:26705] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 8230/2025 Bholaram S/o Chaganlal, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Rawan Chowk Nai Basti Aklera, P.s. Aklera, Dist. Jhalawar (At Present Confined In District Jail Jhalawar) ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Dadhich For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 17/07/2025 1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.455/2024 registered at Police Station Aklera, District Jhalawar (Rajasthan) for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 352, 109(2) & 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 191(2), 190 & 352 of BNS, 2023. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 12.02.2025. Now, material witnesses have been examined during [2025:RJ-JP:26705] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-8230/2025] the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that when witnesses were initially examined, they levelled allegation against the petitioner of causing injury on the head of the deceased with an iron pipe however, when they were examined during the course of trial, they did not support the prosecution case and narrated a different story and have been declared hostile. Counsel submits that initially, there was allegation against the petitioner and one Raju of causing injury on the person of the deceased however, later on, witnesses changed their version in the Court and levelled allegation against the petitioner and two other persons. Counsel submits that alleged incident took place on 07.09.2024 and deceased passed away on 01.10.2024 and according to the opinion of medical expert, cause of death is septicaemia therefore, possibility of medical negligence cannot be ruled out. Counsel submits that it has been stated by the medical expert in his court testimony that at the time of post-mortem, injury was in a process of healing thus, he cannot tell that injury was caused by which weapon. Counsel submits that co-accused namely Raju @ Rajendra, Chaganlal, Dropti Bai @ Dropdi Bai, Hemraj & Saurabh have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court. Counsel further submits that till date only five witnesses have been examined out of thirty one cited prosecution witnesses thus, there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future. Counsel contends that petitioner is in custody since 03.10.2024 and [2025:RJ-JP:26705] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-8230/2025] 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 and submits that petitioner is named in the FIR and he actively participated in commission of crime. Counsel submits that five injuries have been noted by the medical expert on the person of the deceased. 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 the parties, material available on record in the form of charge-sheet including testimony of witnesses, as also the fact that other co-accused persons namely Raju @ Rajendra, Chaganlal, Dropti Bai @ Dropdi Bai, Hemraj & Saurabh have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Bholaram S/o Chaganlal 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 [2025:RJ-JP:26705] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-8230/2025] 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 LALIT MOHAN /296