[2025:RJ-JP:34262] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9348/2025 Fulchand S/o Gangadhar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Aantroli, Police Thana Balaran District Sikar, Raj. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In District Jail Sikar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 28/08/2025 1. The instant bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.16/2025 registered at Police Station Balaran, District Sikar for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2) & 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner. It is submitted that all the injuries sustained by the injured person are on non-vital part of the body. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 08.05.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. [2025:RJ-JP:34262] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-9348/2025] 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner is duly named in the FIR and as per medical report, injury Nos. 5, 6 and 7 have been opined as dangerous to life. Counsel further submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as five other cases have been registered against him. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in two cases, petitioner has been acquitted. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially considering the fact that specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner in the FIR, as also the fact that according to the medical report, injury Nos. 5, 6 and 7 have been opined as dangerous to life, so also considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner as well as looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed. 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 GAUTAM JAIN /125