[2025:RJ-JP:36534] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 8819/2025 Ravi Gautam S/o Vishnu Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Sarolakala, P.s Sarolakala, Distt. Jhalawar (Raj.) (At Present Is Confined In District Jail Jhalawar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 8820/2025 Dhan Raj @ Dhanji S/o Laxminarayan, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Taraj, P.s. Sarolakala, Distt. Jhalawar (Raj.) (At Present Petitioner Is Confined In Central Jail Jhalawar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 8821/2025 Sonu Gurjar S/o Babulal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Bandri, P.s. Aklera, Presently R/o Taraj P.s. Sarolakala, Distt. Jhalawar (Raj.). (At Present Petitioner Is Confined In District Jail Jhalawar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pallav Sharma Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt. G.A. Mr. Rohit Khandelwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 10/09/2025 1. These second bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.183/2024 registered at Police Station [2025:RJ-JP:36534] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-8819/2025] Sarola, District Jhalawar (Rajasthan) for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 126(2), 115(2), 324(4), 324(5) & 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 324(4), 103(1), 191(2), 191(3), 190 & 61(2)(a) of BNS, 2023. 2. The first bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioners were dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 27.03.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of four injured/eye-witnesses namely- Vishwajit Sharma, Pramod Gurjar, Surendra Chawdi and Shivraj Suman. Now, two witnesses namely- Pramod Gurjar and Shivraj Suman have been examined during the course of trial thus, these second bail applications have been preferred. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submit that it has been admitted by the witnesses in their testimony that they alongwith deceased sustained injury in the accident. Counsel submit that it appears from the testimony of witness- Shivraj Suman that one video of the deceased was also made during the course of treatment wherein it has been clearly stated by him that he sustained injury in the accident. It is submitted that remaining two witnesses namely- Vishwajit Sharma and Surendra Chawdi are not turning up for recording their testimony before the learned trial Court despite issuance of warrant of arrest. Counsel submit that order-sheet dated 30.08.2025 drawn by the learned trial Court would reveal that [2025:RJ-JP:36534] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-8819/2025] both the witnesses are hiding themselves and are not traceable to the prosecution agency. Counsel submit that co-accused Anurag @ Lakhan has already been granted benefit of bail by this Court whereas co-accused namely- Ashok, Dinesh, Radheshyam, Phoolchand Gurjar, Sonu and Nawal have been granted benefit of bail by learned trial Court. Counsel submit that it appears from the impugned order that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as till date, only two witnesses have been examined out of thirty one cited prosecution witnesses. Counsel contend that petitioners- Ravi Gautam and Dhan Raj @ Dhanji are in custody since 20.08.2024 whereas petitioner- Sonu Gurjar is in custody since 22.08.2024 and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail made by learned counsel for the petitioners. They submit that FIR has been registered on the basis of Parcha Bayan of the deceased wherein petitioners are duly named. 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, especially considering the Court testimony of aforesaid injured/eye-witnesses, as also considering the fact that aforementioned co-accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by this court as well as learned trial court, so also the fact that witnesses namely- Vishwajit Sharma and [2025:RJ-JP:36534] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-8819/2025] Surendra Chawdi are not turning up for recording their testimony before the learned trial Court despite issuance of warrant of arrest and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as till date, only two witnesses have been examined 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 these second bail applications. 7. These second bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners (1) Ravi Gautam S/o Vishnu Sharma, (2) Dhan Raj @ Dhanji S/o Laxminarayan and (3) Sonu Gurjar S/o Babulal shall be released on bail provided each of them 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 they 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 observations made hereinabove are 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 /71-73