[2025:RJ-JP:3527] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 632/2025 Shoyab S/o Shri Insaf Ali, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Ladpura P.s. Kaithun District Kota Rajasthan. (At Present Confined At Central Jail Kota). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 633/2025 Salman Mohammed S/o Shri Shahzad Husain, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Ladpura P.s. Kaithun District Kota Rajasthan. (At Present Confined At Central Jail Kota). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Rahim Khan For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Dave, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 24/01/2025 1. These instant third bail applications have been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioners. The petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.113/2024 registered at Police Station Kaithun, District Kota Rural for the offence(s) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323 and 307 of IPC. [2025:RJ-JP:3527] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-632/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in these cases. He further submits that the second bail application of the accused- petitioner was dismissed with the liberty to file afresh after recording of statements of eye witnesses. It is contended that the allegations against the accused-petitioners are omnibus in nature and not specific, injured Shokat Ali and other injured Mustafa, in their examination-in-chief have stated that the accused-petitioners along with the other co-accused Sameer caused injuries to them. The other co-accused Shahjad Husain has already been enlarged on bail and the accused-petitioners' cases are not different from the other co-accused Shahzad. It is also contended that the eye witness PW-6 Fardeen has not supported the prosecution story and he reached after the incident. It is also contended that at the time of incident PW-3 Saddam was not present at the place of occurrence and PW-1 injured Shaukat in his statement has categorically stated that at the time of incident only PW-6 Fardeen was present at the place of occurrence. It is also contended that cross case was also lodged against the complainant(s) party and police has charge-sheeted the complainant(s) party under Section 452 of IPC. The accused-petitioners are in custody since long and trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the bail applications of the accused-petitioners may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail applications and contended that all the eye witnesses in their statements have categorically stated that the accused-petitioners caused injuries to Shokat and Mustafa. It is also contended that as [2025:RJ-JP:3527] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-632/2025] a result of injuries caused to Shaukat and Mustafa, Shaukat received six injuries out of which three injuries were caused with sharp weapon and at the vital parts. It is specifically opined by the concerned medical jurist that injury Nos.3 to 7 caused to Mustafa are grievous in nature and inflicted with sharp weapon. The injuries caused to injured were at vital parts, therefore, considering the nature of injuries caused to the injured, the bail applications of the accused-petitioners may be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. It is not apposite for the Court to comment upon the veracity of the witnesses, injured Shokat and Mustafa in their statements have stated that the accused-petitioners caused injuries to them. The injuries sustained to injured Shokat and Mustafa are at vital parts and as a result of attack, Mustafa sustained three grievous injuries with sharp weapon. The other eye witness PW-4 Saddam, in his examination-in-chief has also supported the prosecution story. It is informed by learned counsel for the petitioners that out of 13 witnesses, statements of 6 witnesses have already been recorded. Considering the nature of offences and the past Act of the accused-petitioners, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail. 6. Hence, the third bail applications of the accused-petitioners are hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/14-15