[2025:RJ-JP:34985] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8835/2025 Rohit Singh @ Raju S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Baharawnda Khurd, Police Station Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur. (At Present Confined In District Jail, Sawai Madhopur). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Jain For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 29/08/2025 1. Instant application for bail is filed under Section 483 of BNSS by the applicant-accused Rohit Singh @ Raju S/o Mohan Lal in FIR No. 161/2025 dated 15.06.2025 registered at P.S. Khandar District -Sawaimadhopur, whereby the applicant- accused was charged under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 352 and 189(2) of BNS. 2. The applicant was arrested and is in judicial custody since his arrest. The Court below has dismissed the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant relying upon grounds raised in bail application submits that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. Further, he submits that the investigation relating to present applicant-accused is complete and is no more required by the Investigating Agency for investigation. He also submits [2025:RJ-JP:34985] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-8835/2025] that the trial will take its own time and no purpose will be served by keeping the applicant-accused in custody. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that FIR is registered on 15.06.2025 for incident of 14.06.2025 under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 352 and 189(2) of BNS but there is no allegation of assault intended to murder Raghuveer Singh is made in the report. He further submitted that present petitioner is not named in the FIR and his role and involvement is also not mentioned in the report. He further submitted that cross FIR No.160/2025 is also registered on very same day of incident but before registration of current FIR, it indicated that to counter blast, cross case is registered by complainant. He further submitted that as per report of doctors, there were no injuries in vital part of deceased rather he was suffering from blood pressure and other problems and due to sudden spurt in blood pressure, his surgery was postponed and during treatment, deceased Raghveer died. He further submitted that in PMR report, medical board has opined about cause of death and no specific attribution is made upon petitioner. He also submitted that in cross-case the role and involvement of deceased was investigated by police and police has found that he was involved and he made assault. He further submitted that police has recorded statement of Vidyadhar and as per him, present petitioner has inflicted blows on leg of deceased. He further submitted that petitioner is in custody and charge-sheet has been filed. [2025:RJ-JP:34985] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-8835/2025] 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. 6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 7. The complainant Vidyadevi w/o Raghuveer has lodged a report on 15.06.2025 about incident of 14.06.2025 and police has investigated the matter and after investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against the petitioner. A cross FIR No.160/2025 is also registered by complainant Rohit on 14.06.2025 against several persons including deceased Raghveer. 8. We have considered statement of Vidyadhar and also considered PMR of deceased Raghuveer. The details mentioned in PMR indicated that there was one lacerated wound on left leg of deceased and except that injury no other injury was found on body of deceased. The medical board has reserved the opinion but details mentioned in PMR indicated that Raghuveer was admitted on 15.06.2025 but due to shoot up of BP, his OT case was rejected and referred for physician and he was declared dead on 21.06.2025. 9. Upon hearing the arguments and perusing the record, we have found that the applicant-accused is no more required in the investigation and he is in custody for quite some time. The further proceedings will take its own time, therefore, looking to entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant- accused. [2025:RJ-JP:34985] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-8835/2025] 10. Thus, the instant bail application filed on behalf of applicant-accused Rohit Singh @ Raju S/o Mohan Lal, is hereby allowed and the applicant-accused is ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant-accused shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner. (ii) The applicant-accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the Law. (iii) The applicant-accused shall attend the hearing of the Trial Court on the date fixed by the Trial court or as and when asked to appear before the Trial Court. (iv) In case of any violation of above conditions, the bail granted to the applicant-accused shall be liable to be canceled. 11. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court through E-mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /75