[2025:RJ-JP:32783] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10634/2025 Vijendra Meena S/o Shri Hemraj Meena, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Arniya, Police Station Kaithun, District Kota Rural. (Presently Confined In Central Jail, Kota). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Rajneesh Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 20/08/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.325/2024 registered at Police Station Kaithoon, District Kota Rural (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 103(1), 61(2)(b) of BNS, 2023, Section 3/25 of Arms Act and Sections 3(2)(v) & 3(2) (va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Later on, Police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 191(3), 190, 115(2), 103(1), 217(a), 238(a), 324(6) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that according to the facts of the case, FIR was lodged on the basis of written report submitted by the co- [2025:RJ-JP:32783] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-10634/2025] accused Narendra Meena, wherein specific allegation was levelled by him against five persons. He further submits by disbelieving the story narrated by him, co-accused Narendra Meena has been made accused in this case by Investigating Agency. As per the prosecution case, one Vijendra Meena (petitioner herein) caused firearm injury on the person of the deceased. In support of this story statement of one independent witness – Jonesh Meena was recorded under Section 183 BNSS (164 Cr.P.C.) and according to his version, accused Vijendra Meena (petitioner herein) caused firearm injury on the person of the deceased due to which, he fell down. As per the said independent witnesses, Ranjeet Meena, Vijendra Meena and Narendra Meena picked him up and took him to the car. The statement of this witness under Section 183 BNSS (164 Cr.P.C.) was recorded on 19.07.2024 and on the same day, the petitioner was arrested and since then, he is behind the bars. Learned counsel argues that Jonesh Meena has been examined during course of trial and he has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. Other co-accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court. Trial of the case will take considerable time. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, but he fairly concedes that independent eye-witness Jonesh Meena has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. 4. I have considered the contentions. [2025:RJ-JP:32783] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-10634/2025] 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially the fact that other co-accused persons have been granted benefit of bail; independent eye witness Jonesh Meena has not supported the prosecution and he has been declared hostile by the prosecution case; charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take 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 the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Vijendra Meena S/o Shri Hemraj Meena, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes 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 herein above 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 MADAN/S-311