[2025:RJ-JP:27879] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc 2nd Bail Application No. 9463/2025 Yogesh S/o Shiv Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Bahadurpur, District Karauli (Rajasthan). (The Accused Petitioner Presently Confined In Jail, Gangapur City). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 25/07/2025 1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No.366/2023 registered at Police Station Gangapur City, District Gangapur City for the offences under Sections 143, 452, 323, 307, 302 & 506 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that initially neither the accused-petitioner was named in the FIR nor there was any allegation of firearm injury attributed to him. Learned counsel further submits that as per postmortem report the cause of death is the injury caused by firearm. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 30.01.2024 and while dismissing his first bail application as withdrawn, he was at liberty to file fresh bail application after examination of certain prosecution witnesses. [2025:RJ-JP:27879] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-9463/2025] Learned counsel further submits that three prosecution witnesses have been declared hostile as they have not supported the prosecution story. The statement of Mausam Bai has not been recorded so far because she is not turning up. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant witness-Chetram recorded as PW-3, while lodging the FIR, has not named the accused-petitioner, however, before the learned trial Court he made allegation against the accused-petitioner that he was with other co-accused persons. Learned counsel also submits that version of complainant-Chetram (PW-3) is also not credible as in the FIR he has named Nem Singh as one of the accused, however, during his statement before the learned trial Court he stated that he has named Nem Singh in the FIR by mistake though he was not present. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that the accused-petitioner was a member of unlawful assembly and punishment for a member of unlawful assembly is also the same as main offence. 6. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the acused petitioner and also perused the material available on record including the statements of the prosecution witnesses, namely, Chetram (PW-3), Manraj (PW-6), Shiv Singh (PW-7) and Nitesh (PW-8). Co-accused namely Babusingh @ VP Singh has already been enlarged on bail and on perusal of the averments of the first information report, the case of the present accused petitioner does not seem to be distinguishable from the case of the accused Babusingh @ VP Singh, who has already been enlarged on bail. [2025:RJ-JP:27879] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-9463/2025] 7. On perusal of the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the Court finds that three material witnesses, namely, Manraj, Shiv Singh and Nitesh have been declared hostile as they have not supported the prosecution story. In the statement of complainant- Chetram, there is no allegation against the accused-petitioner of causing any firearm injury whereas, cause of death of the deceased is firearm. 8. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and the facts stated above and so also the fact that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 21.01.2024, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 9. Accordingly, this second bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner named above in connection with the aforesaid FIR shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- together with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Gaurav Srivastava /2