[2025:RJ-JP:35678] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10285/2025 1. Mukesh S/o Bhamboli, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Butiyana, Police Station Baroda Mev, District Alwar. 2. Shivcharan S/o Rohitash, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Butiyana, Police Station Baroda Mev, District Alwar. 3. Sanjay S/o Rohitash, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Butiyana, Police Station Baroda Mev, District Alwar. 4. Kanhaiya S/o Mukesh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Butiyana, Police Station Baroda Mev, District Alwar. (Presently Confined At Sub Jail Laxmangarh) ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Gupta Mr. Dharmendra Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Dhakad, PP Mr. Anupam Sharma Mr. Harshit Parashar Dr. Jitendra Pathak HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 04/09/2025 1. Instant application for bail is filed under Section 483 of BNSS by the petitioners-accused Mukesh S/o Bhamboli, Shivcharan S/o Rohitash, Sanjay S/o Rohitash and Kanhaiya S/o Mukesh in FIR No.154/2025 dated 07.06.2025 registered at P.S. Baroda Meo, District - Alwar, whereby the petitioner-accused has charged under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2) and 332(c) of BNS, 2023. [2025:RJ-JP:35678] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-10285/2025] 2. The petitioners were arrested and are in judicial custody since his arrest. The Court below has dismissed the bail application of petitioners. 3. During course of arguments learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner accused Sanjay S/o Rohitash has withdrawn the bail application of Sanjay, therefore, we are only considering bail application of Mukesh, Shivcharan and Kanhaiya. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon grounds raised in bail application submits that the petitioner is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a land dispute between the parties and the fact of admitted animosity is on record. He further submits that initially Mukesh (petitioner No.1) has registered FIR No.151/2025 and as a counterblast, current FIR is registered after a delay of two days by complainant. He further submits that total 5 persons were said to have sustained injury in the matter from complainant side but the persons from accused side have also sustained injuries and same is evident from the report submitted by the PS Baroda Meo. He further submits that except injury upon Prem, all are simple in nature and injury upon injured Prem is not dangerous to life rather it is grievous. He further submits that it is a case of free fight and there is no criminal antecedents against the petitioners accused and no case under Section 110 of BNS is made out. He also submitted that the trial will take its own time and no purpose will be served by keeping the petitioners-accused in custody. [2025:RJ-JP:35678] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-10285/2025] 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a report received from concerned police station. 6. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that a false report is registered by the petitioner accused Mukesh Kumar and the injured complainant were busy in treatment. He further submits that the injury upon skull of Prem Devi is found grievous and dangerous to life. He further submits that the petitioners accused were aggressor. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties. 8. On basis of report lodged by complainant Bharti on 07.06.2025 about incident of 05.06.2025, current FIR is registered but prior to current FIR, a cross FIR No.151/2025 is registered by the petitioner accused No.1 Mukesh on 05.06.2025 for same incident. In current incident, Bharti, Mukesh, Prem, Santosh and Sunita have sustained injures. The injury No.1 upon Prem Devi was found grievous and blunt which was later opined as dangerous to life. The material on record indicate that there is a land dispute and a revenue litigation is pending between the parties. The dispute pertains to cultivation and possession of land. 9. Upon hearing the arguments and perusing the record, we have found that the petitioner-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, [2025:RJ-JP:35678] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-10285/2025] 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 petitioner-accused. 10. Thus, the instant bail application filed on behalf of petitioners-accused is hereby allowed and the petitioners- accused Mukesh S/o Bhamboli, Shivcharan S/o Rohitash and Kanhaiya S/o Mukesh are ordered to be released on bail provided each of them 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 petitioners-accused shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner. (ii) The petitioners-accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the Law. (iii) The petitioners-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 petitioners-accused shall be liable to be cancelled. 11. Bail application preferred by petitioner accused Sanjay S/o Rohitash is dismissed as withdrawn. 12. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court through E-mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/14