HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15437/2023 Santram S/o Shri Hetsingh, R/o Village Barelapura, Moroli, Police Station Kotwali, Dholpur, District Dholpur (Raj.). (At Present Confined In District Jail, Dholpur). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Ramkishore S/o Shri Sovran, R/o Moroli, Police Station Kotwali, Dholpur, District Dholpur (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP Mr. Anirudh Tyagi, for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 21/01/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 439 of Cr.PC. 2. F.I.R. No. 260/2023 was registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Dholpur for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 302 of IPC. Later on, charge-sheet has been filed for the offence punishable under Section 302, 34 of IPC. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel contends that the cause of death is crushed injuries, which has been attributed to accused Bhuendra @ Bhupe. Petitioner is in custody since 01.08.2023. Charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take considerable time. Further custody of the petitioner would (2 of 2) [CRLMB-15437/2023] not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. They submit that as per the prosecution case, the accused Bhupendra @ Bhupe ran over a tractor over the deceased Kallaram at the instance (call) of accused Ugrasen and Santram. The petitioner is not only named in the FIR but his name has also been mentioned in the statements of the witnesses namely Surendra S/o. Soveran Singh & Harendra Singh S/o. Rajveer Singh. It is contended that as per postmortem report, cause of death is syncope and antemortem injury of multiple vital organs leading to hemorrhagic shock and excessive bleeding. They thus, pray that bail should not be granted to him. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced at bar as also looking to the gravity of offence and nature of allegations and role attributed to the accused petitioner, I am not inclined to accept this bail application at this stage. 6. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed. 7. However, petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer of bail application after recording testimony of the aforesaid two witnesses (highlighted above) and the doctors who conducted postmortem of dead body. The trial court is requested to record testimony of these witnesses on the priority basis. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J ANAND TANWAR /83