[2025:RJ-JP:34494] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11028/2025 Jitendra S/o Dayaram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Kankata @ Raghunandanpura, Police Station Chaksu, District Jaipur. (Presently Confined At Central Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Jogi with Mr. Ishan Mishra, Ms. Rashmi Meena & Mr. Deepak Kumar Yogi For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Chitrank Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 28/08/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.487/2023 registered at Police Station Chaksu, District Jaipur City (South) for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 452, 149, 148, 147, 504, 341 and 323 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that statement of injured eye witnesses i.e., Chotturam PW-1, Goverdhan PW-2, Jagdish PW-3, Rinku PW-5, Gendi PW-6, Dholi PW-7, Deepak PW-8 and Hemraj PW-9 have been recorded [2025:RJ-JP:34494] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-11028/2025] and as per their statement, petitioner has not inflicted any injury on the head of the deceased rather some of the witnesses have assigned the said allegation against co-accused namely- Ashok. It is submitted that as per post mortem report, cause of death is head injury. It is contended that co-accused namely- Arjunlal Meena has been granted benefit of bail by this Court and co- accused Ramphool Meena has been granted benefit of bail by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court. It is contended that case of the present petitioner is also on similar footing. It is contended that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future as till date, only 10 witnesses have been examined out of 32 cited prosecution witnesses. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 12.10.2023 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner has actively participated in commission of crime and as per statement of some of the prosecution witnesses, injury on chest of the deceased has been attributed to the petitioner resulting into fracture of ribs. 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 fact that aforementioned co-accused persons have already been granted [2025:RJ-JP:34494] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-11028/2025] benefit of bail by this court as well as Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, as also the fact that head injury which is cause of death has been attributed to co-accused namely- Ashok, so also the fact that till date, only 10 witnesses have been examined out of 32 cited prosecution witnesses, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow this bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Jitendra S/o Dayaram, shall be released on bail provided, he shall furnish 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 he 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 CHARU SONI /295