[2025:RJ-JP:39284] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11891/2025 Jagdish S/o Ganesh Ram, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Dhani Dhinakala Tan Makadi, Police Station Sadar, Neem Ka Thana, Distt. Sikar (Raj.) (Under Custody At District Jail At Neem Ka Thana). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishwajeet Mantri with Ms. Bismad Kaur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hari Kishan Saini Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 23/09/2025 1. The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Jagdish S/o Ganesh Ram seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.189/2025 dated 24.05.2025 registered at P.S. Sadar, District – Neem Ka Thana , for the offence under Sections 189(2), 333, 115(2), 117(2), 74, 109(1), 126(2) of BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He also submits that the [2025:RJ-JP:39284] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-11891/2025] applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time. 3. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that there was a dispute of pathway between the parties and complainant used to block the road regularly so that accused party may not access the same. He referred the communication and further proceedings in relation to the encroachment by complainant and submitted that the complainant has lodged a report involving all members of family of accused and it is a case of over implication. He further submitted that there is no specific attribution of any assault on any of the petitioner accused rather a general and omnibus allegation are made against them. He further submitted that none of the injuries are on vital part of the body and dangerous to life. He further submitted that three accused were already granted bail by this Hon’ble Court on 09.09.2025 and case of present petitioner is identical with them. He also submitted one criminal case is shown against him but same is disposed of. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. 5. Learned Counsel for Complainant has opposed the bail application and submitted that there is no pathway as claimed by accused party rather the accused party has raised a dispute about pathway on land of complainant and every point of time they tried to disturb the peace and take law in their hand. He further submitted that injured Muni and Indraj have sustained grievous injuries. [2025:RJ-JP:39284] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-11891/2025] 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties. 7. On the basis of report lodged by complainant Munni Devi on 24.05.2025 about incident of assault in the evening of 24.5.2025, a report is registered and matter is investigated. During investigation, injury reports of injured Munni Devi and Indraj were prepared. According to report, there is one fracture on left leg of Munni Devi and there is fracture on left 9th and 10th rib along with a left-sided mild pneumothorax and opined as grievous and dangerous to life. The trial court has dismissed bail application of four accused arrested by the police during investigation. The dispute between the parties arose because of a pathway, which was cleared and opened by administration on 22.05.2025. There is one criminal case against the petitioner and same is disposed of by way of compromise. Three accused were enlarged on bail on 09.09.2025. The counsel for complainant has apprised that panchayat has changed its earlier decision and now it has been recognized that there is no pathway gas existed on land of complainant. 8. Upon hearing the arguments and perusing the record, we have found that the applicant-accused is no more required in the investigation and he is in custody for quite some time. The further proceedings will take its own time, therefore, looking to entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, [2025:RJ-JP:39284] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-11891/2025] the Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant- accused. 9. Thus, the instant bail application filed on behalf of applicant- accused Jagdish S/o Ganesh Ram, is hereby allowed and the applicant-accused is ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant-accused shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner. (ii) The applicant-accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the Law. (iii) The applicant-accused shall attend the hearing of the Trial Court on the date fixed by the Trial court or as and when asked to appear before the Trial Court. (iv) In case of any violation of above conditions, the bail granted to the applicant-accused shall be liable to be canceled. 10. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court through E-mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /06