[2025:RJ-JP:1366] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16426/2024 Narendra S/o Ranglal, R/o Gulkhedi, Police Station Chhipabarod, District Baran, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rinesh Kumar Gupta For Complainant(s) For State : : Mr. Dharmendra Tholia Mr. Himanshu Tholia Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 09/01/2025 1. Petitioner has filed the present anticipatory bail application under Section 482 B.N.S.S. arising out of F.I.R. No.194/2024 registered with the Police Station, Chhipabarod, District Baran for offence under Sections 143, 148, 149, 307 & 323 of IPC. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel further submits that the Police after completion of investigation, has submitted charge- sheet against other accused persons and against the petitioner charge-sheet has been filed under Section 299 Cr.P.C. Counsel further submits that the petitioner being a teacher was posted at Government Upper Primary School Mandhoniya, District Baran and was regularly attending his duties and, therefore, filing of charge- [2025:RJ-JP:1366] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-16426/2024] sheet under Section 299 Cr.P.C. is not acceptable and same shows that the Police was biased with the petitioner. Counsel further submits that the allegation levelled against the present petitioner is of causing head injury to injured Mohit with sword, however, the injury assigned to him, as per the Medical Report, is laceration and the laceration cannot be caused with the sharp object. Counsel further submits that the injury as has been alleged to be caused by the petitioner, is simple in nature, hence, no offence under Section 326 IPC is made out against him and further, even if the allegations are taken to be correct for the arguments sake, then the petitioner at the most can be convicted for offence under Section 324 IPC only, which is bailable. Counsel also submits that the petitioner is always ready to cooperate with the investigation in future and no purpose will be served in sending him in custody. Counsel also submits that the grievous injury sustained by the injured- Ramesh Chand, is not assigned to the present petitioner, therefore, he may be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner actively participated in committing the alleged offence. 4. Counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner alongwith other accused persons, armed with sword, came and made an attack on the complainant party and caused injury to injured witness- Mohit. He further submits that as per the opinion of the Medical Board dated 28.05.2024, there is possibility of [2025:RJ-JP:1366] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-16426/2024] laceration even by the sharp edged weapon. Further, it has been opined that sharp edged weapon can cause abrasion, laceration, incised wound, stab wound and fracture etc. Counsel also submits that a criminal case for offence under Section 354 IPC is pending against the present petitioner 5. Heard. 6. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the challan papers. 7. As per the First Information Report, the petitioner alongwith other accused persons, who were armed with sword, gandasi, wooden stick (lathi) & country made fire arm (katta) came and made an attack on the complainant-party and inflicted injuries to the injured- Ramesh Chand, Mohit and Shyam Bihari. 8. Injured witness- Mohit in his statement recorded by the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has specifically levelled allegation against the present petitioner of causing head injury with sword. 9. On perusal of Medical Report of injured witness Mohit, this Court finds that there is laceration on the head and the object with which it has been caused, has been mentioned as sharp. 10. Counsel for the petitioner raised an objection that there cannot be laceration by a sharp weapon, however, as per the opinion of the Medical Board dated 28.05.2024, the laceration can be caused even by a sharp edged object. 11. Taking into consideration over all facts and circumstances of the case, more particularly the fact that there are specific [2025:RJ-JP:1366] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-16426/2024] allegations against the present petitioner of causing injury by a sharp edged weapon to one of the injured Mohit, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 12. Accordingly, present anticipatory bail application is dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /25