HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12432/2025 1. Chhotu Lal S/o Jansiram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Haripura, Police Station Rahuwas, District Dausa. (At Present Confined In District Jail Dausa). 2. Rajendra @ Raju S/o Daluram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Haripura, Police Station Rahuwas, District Dausa. (At Present Confined In District Jail Dausa). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13246/2025 Kamlesh S/o Shri Surajmal Saini, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Maliyo Ki Dhani, Khemawas, Police Station Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.) (At Present Accused Is Confined In District Jail, Dausa (Raj.)) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13247/2025 Mohan Lal S/o Jansiram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Haripura, Tehsil Rahuwas, Police Station Rahuwas, District Dausa (Raj.). (At Present Accused Is Confined In District Jail, Dausa (Raj.)) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13248/2025 Babu Lal S/o Daluram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Gram Haripura, Tehsil Rahuwas, Police Station Rahuwas, District Dausa. (At Present Confined In District Jail, Dausa). ----Petitioner (2 of 5) [CRLMB-12432/2025] Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vipin Sharma, Mr. Dharmendra Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta Mr. Amit Punia, Addl.GA/PP with Mr. Shubham Kumar Sain JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 14/10/2025 1. Since all these bail applications are arising out of the same FIR, hence with the consent of counsel for the parties arguments have been heard together and these applications are being decided by this common order. 2. All these bail applications under Section 483 BNSS have been filed by the petitioners in connection with FIR No.39/2025, registered at Police Station Rahuwas, District Dausa, wherein they have been charged for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 190 and 103(2) of BNS. Subsequently, they have been charged for the offences under Sections 191(1), 191(2), 103(1) and 117(2) of BNS in addition to the offences under the FIR. 3. Counsels for the petitioners submit that an incident has occurred on the fateful day, wherein, nine persons have been implicated as accused. Counsels submit that apart from the injured, the deceased has also sustained injuries and the injury No.1 sustained by him on his head was found to be the cause (3 of 5) [CRLMB-12432/2025] of death. Counsels submit that general common omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the accused persons, out of which four accused namely Manisha, Revdi, Sita and Asha have already been granted indulgence of bail by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 08.09.2025. Counsels submit that all the persons cannot be made liable and responsible for a single injury sustained by the deceased on his head, as the case does not fall within the definition of murder, as defined under Section 101 of BNS. Counsels submit that the petitioners are in custody and after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take its own time to conclude, therefore, indulgence of bail be extended to the petitioners as well. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant opposed the arguments raised by counsels for the petitioners and submitted that there are five persons, who have sustained injuries on various parts of their body. The injured Girraj and Vinod have sustained grievous injuries and the injured Sohan Lal and Mitha Lal have also sustained injuries. Counsel submits that as per the statements of Sohan Lal and Vinod, the accused Mohan Lal and Kamlesh had caused the head injury to the victim-Prahlad, and as per the statements of injured Kailash, the accused Mohan Lal, Kamlesh and Rajendra have caused the head injury to the victim- Prahlad. Counsel submits that the blood stained weapon used to commit the offence has been recovered at the instance of all the petitioners. Counsel submits that under these (4 of 5) [CRLMB-12432/2025] circumstances, the petitioners are not entitled to get benefit of bail and their applications are liable to be rejected. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 6. Considering the arguments put forward by rival sides and looking to the statements of injured eyewitnesses i.e. Sohan Lal, Vinod and Kailash, which reflect that the allegation of causing head injury to the deceased-Prahlad has been levelled against Mohan Lal, Kamlesh and Rajendra, though the deceased has sustained only one injury, but this fact is not clear as to who has caused the fatal injury, under such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain their application. 7. Accordingly, the bail applications filed by the applicants- Mohan Lal, Kamlesh and Rajendra stand rejected. 8. Rest of the accused-applicants Chhotu Lal and Babu Lal are granted the indulgence of bail, as no specific overt act has been assigned to them. 9. Accordingly, bail applications filed by the accused-Chhotu Lal and Babu Lal under Section 483 BNSS are allowed and it is ordered that accused-applicants Chhotu Lal S/o Jansiram and Babu Lal S/o Daluram arrested in connection with aforementioned FIR, be released on bail; provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing, and as and when called upon to do so. (5 of 5) [CRLMB-12432/2025] 10. However, the petitioner Mohan Lal, Kamlesh and Rajendra would be at liberty to renew their prayer for bail after recording of statements of the material eyewitnesses Sohan Lal, Vinod and Kailash. 11. The Trial Court is expected to record their statements on priority basis. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/139-142