[2025:RJ-JP:251] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 15987/2024 Mayaram S/o Hemraj, R/o Village Luharpura Police Station Dei District Bundi (Raj.) (At Present Accused Confined In Jail Bundi). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudarshan Kumar Laddha, Adv. For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Manvendra Singh, Dy. GA Mr. Ankush Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 03/01/2025 1. The 3rd bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No.104/2021 registered at Police Station Dei, District Bundi for the offence under Sections 147, 149, 341, 323, 307, 302 IPC (lateron offence under Sections 148, 323, 326, 307, 302 IPC were found to have been made out). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He is behind the bars since 26.05.2021. Charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner. Out of 34 witnesses 16 witnesses have been examined by the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that similarly situated co-accused Monu @ Manmohan and Manoji Bai have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 24.09.2021 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application [2025:RJ-JP:251] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-15987/2024] Nos.15274/2021 & 15645/2021 and co-accused Sunil @ Sonu has been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.01.2023 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No.13271/2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there is a major contradiction in the statement of the witnesses. The witnesses stated that petitioner inflicted injury on the head of the deceased by sharp edged weapon, whereas postmortem report reveals that injury was caused by blunt weapon. The conclusion of trial may take long time. So, the petitioner be enlarged on bail. 3. Learned Dy. GA as well as learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that petitioner inflicted injury on the head of the deceased Ram Kunwar, who died on account of head injuries. So, looking to the gravity of offence, the bail application be dismissed. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Dy. GA and learned counsel for the complainant. 5. Allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner had inflicted injury on the head of deceased and as per postmortem report, deceased died due to head injury. So, looking to the gravity of offence, I do not consider it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Hence, the 3rd bail application stands dismissed. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /5