[2025:RJ-JP:32834] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9153/2025 1. Salman Kathat @ Sanwara S/o Shri Babu Kathat, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Nagali, Tehsil Masuda, District Beawar At Present Gali No. 3, Eidgah Colony Ajmer. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer). 2. Shahzad Kathat S/o Shri Deena Kathat, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Nanna, Tehsil Raipur, Police Station Sendra, District Beawar At Present Gali No. 2, Eidgah Colony, Ajmer. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 20/08/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.103/2025 registered at Police Station Christianganj, District Ajmer (Rajasthan) for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 103(1) & 189(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that it is a case of single injury and same has been attributed to co- [2025:RJ-JP:32834] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-9153/2025] accused namely- Deena. Counsel submits that initially, FIR was registered for the offence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 302 of IPC) but during the course of investigation, offence punishable under Section 103(1) of BNS, 2023 has not been found proved by the Investigating Agency and charge-sheet has been filed for the offence punishable under Section 105 of BNS, 2023 (Section 304 of IPC). Counsel submits that according to histopathology report, cause of death is acute myocardial infarction. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioners are in custody since 31.03.2025 and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. 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 material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, as also considering the fact that it is a case of single injury and same has been attributed to co-accused namely- Deena, so also the fact that charge-sheet has been filed for the offence punishable under Section 105 of BNS, 2023 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 bail application. [2025:RJ-JP:32834] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-9153/2025] 6. [2025:RJ-JP:32834] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-9153/2025] 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners- (1) Salman Kathat @ Sanwara S/o Shri Babu Kathat and (2) Shahzad Kathat S/o Shri Deena Kathat 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. 7. 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 /217