[2025:RJ-JP:34780] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10205/2025 Suresh S/o Badrinarayan, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Bajya Ki Dhani, Tan Dhani Ps Jobner, Dist Jaipur (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p., Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10358/2025 1. Badrinarayan S/o Harlaram, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Bajya Ki Dhani, Tan Dhani Boraj, P.s. Jobner, District Jaipur (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Sambhar Lake Jaipur). 2. Jeevanram S/o Harlaram, Aged About 80 Years, R/o Bajya Ki Dhani, Tan Dhani Boraj, P.s. Jobner, District Jaipur (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Sambhar Lake Jaipur). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shivraj Chauhan Mr. Ankit Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Pareek (in S.B. CRLMB No. 10205/2025) Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 29/08/2025 1. These two bail applications for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS by the applicants-accused Suresh S/o Badrinarayan, Badrinarayan S/o Harlaram, Jeevanram [2025:RJ-JP:34780] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-10205/2025] S/o Harlaram, in FIR No. 105/2025 dated 21.04.2025 registered at P.S. Jobner District – Jaipur Rural, whereby the applicant-accused was charged under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2) of BNS. 2. The applicants were arrested and are in judicial custody since their arrest. The Court below has dismissed the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicants relying upon grounds raised in bail application submits that the applicants are innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that the age of Jeevanram is 80 years whereas Badrinarayan is 56 years and both are brothers. He further submitted that a cross FIR is also registered for the incident and the matter pertains to a family dispute and it is a case of free fight on sudden provocation. He further submitted that injury report of Shankarlal, Ramesh Kumar and Mangal Chand were prepared by police and Shankarlal and Ramesh Kumar have sustained simple injuries whereas Mangalchand has sustained one grievous injury on his head. He further referred the evidence recorded by police and submitted that the grievous injury upon head of Mangalchand is assigned to Kana Ram and not upon any of the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner-accused Suresh submits that he has not named in FIR and no injury is assigned to him. He further referred the dispute between the parties and submitted that a charge-sheet has already been filed against Jeevanram, Badrinarayan and Suresh. [2025:RJ-JP:34780] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-10205/2025] 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. Learned counsel for complainant submitted that allegation is upon all accused who participated in the incident and injury upon Mangalchand is dangerous to life. He specifically pointed out these petitioners were involved in the incident and they were named by the injured and eye-witnesses. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 6. On the basis of report dated 21.04.2025 lodged by Shankarlal about incident of 20.04.2025 a report is registered and matter is investigated. After investigation police has arrested Jeevanram, Badrinarayan and Suresh and found that involvement of Kana Ram, Mahesh Kumar and Bhagwan Sahai is not established but later the investigation is re-opened and conducted by another investigating officer wherein involvement of Kana Ram, Mahesh Kumar and Bhagwan Sahai is found and the matter is still pending for arrest of Kana Ram, Mahesh Kumar and Bhagwan Sahai. 7. A specific attribution of injury upon Mangalchand is made upon Kana Ram who made assault on head of Mangalchand. One of the petitioners is 80 year old. 8. Upon hearing the arguments and perusing the record, we have found that the applicants-accused are no more required in the investigation and they are 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 [2025:RJ-JP:34780] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-10205/2025] case, the Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the applicants-accused. 9. Thus, the instant bail application filed on behalf of applicants-accused Suresh S/o Badrinarayan, Badrinarayan S/o Harlaram, Jeevanram S/o Harlaram, is hereby allowed and 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 applicants-accused shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner. (ii) The applicants-accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the Law. (iii) The applicants-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. 10. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court through E-mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /106-107