[2025:RJ-JP:31748] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 947/2025 Chetram S/o Ramsi Lal, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village Nawajipura, Police Station Piloda, At Present Assistant Engineer, P.h.e.d., Sub Division, Hindaun City At Present Lodged In The Sub Jail, Gangapur City. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Ms. Manju Dave, PP Mr. Rajneesh Gupta with Mr. Rahul Sharma Mr. Kuldeep Singh Meena HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 07/08/2025 1. Instant application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS by the petitioner-accused Chetram S/o Ramsi Lal in FIR No.05/2024 dated 08.01.2024 registered at P.S. Piloda District Sawai Madhopur, whereby the petitioner-accused has been charged under Sections 143 and 302 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working on post of Assistant Engineer, PHED and having no concern with the incident. He submits that this petitioner is neither named in FIR nor he is residing at place of incident. He further submits that initially deceased has registered an FIR No.68/2022 under Section 323, 341, 498A and 406 IPC at PS Piloda and police has closed this matter as [2025:RJ-JP:31748] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-947/2025] this petitioner was not named in said incident. He further submits that this petitioner has been charged with aid of Section 120B IPC and there is no evidence of meeting of mind to show involvement of present petitioner in the incident. He further submits that the case of prosecution rests upon statement of a child witness Kapil, and his statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded by police and later under Section 164 CrPC by learned Judicial Magistrate but there is improvement and inconsistency in the statement of Kapil, who is a tutored witness. He further submits that petitioner accused is arrested on 14.12.2024 only after supplementary charge-sheet was filed which indicate that initially petitioner-accused was not found involved but only under the pressure, this petitioner-accused is arrayed as an accused because he is a Government Servant. He further submits that four witnesses were examined so far by the trial Court and PW-1 Manoj Kumar is not an eye-witness and his evidence is not trustworthy as he is just a hearsay witness. He referred cross-examination of PW-4 Kapil and submitted that he is a tutored witness and his evidence clearly indicate that he is not disclosing correct details in his deposition. He further referred the shoddy investigation by police and submitted that even statement under Section 161 CrPC was recorded five days after the incident which clearly shows that five days time was taken by complainant to record statement of PW-4 Kapil. He further referred post-mortem report and submitted that Medical Board has reserved its opinion about cause of death. [2025:RJ-JP:31748] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-947/2025] At last he submitted that the role and involvement of petitioner is not proved and Co-ordinate Bench has already granted bail to Smt. Muneshi and Smt. Guddi and SLP against grant of bail was dismissed on 16.05.2025. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon statement of PW-4 Kapil, who is an eyewitness to the incident and submitted that he has explained the role and involvement of the present petitioner accused. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record. 6. On basis of report dated 08.01.2024 about cruelty and harassment to sister of complainant and further her beatings resulted in her death on 07.01.2024 FIR No.5/2024 under Section 143 and 302 IPC is registered. Initially police has filed a charge-sheet against Smt. Guddi, Smt. Muneshi W/o Kamlesh, Om Prakash, Hema, Gora and Khushbu under Sections 147, 149, 302 and 452 IPC but kept pending against remaining six persons including present petitioner. Thereafter another supplementary charge-sheet is filed and later, third supplementary charge-sheet is filed against present petitioner and others. During course of trial, complainant Manoj examined as PW-1 whereas eye-witness Kapil (age 15 years) is examined as PW-4 and we have considered statement of both the witnesses. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has granted bail to Smt. Muneshi W/o Kamlesh and Smt. Guddi on 12.08.2024 and SLP (Crl.) [2025:RJ-JP:31748] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-947/2025] Nos.3150/2025 and 3151/2025 filed by Manoj Kumar Meena (complainant) were dismissed on 16.05.2025, by Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. We have considered post-mortem repot, FSL Report and Pathology report as submitted by learned counsel. No specific opinion can be expressed at this stage. 8. At this stage of bail, it is not possible for this Court to express any opinion about trustworthiness and truthfulness of witness Kapil, examined as PW-4. The trial Court has recorded his statement on 16.06.2025 and he specifically named present petitioner for involvement of the incident. He specifically corroborated presence of petitioner at the time of commission of crime. The grounds are not sufficient to consider that this petitioner accused is arrayed as an accused as he is a government servant. The persons already granted bail were females and were in custody. 9. Having considered the totality and facts and circumstances of case, particularly, gravity of the matter, I am of considered view that this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner accused Chetram S/o Ramsi Lal on bail under Section 483 of BNSS. 10. In view of above discussion, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS by petitioner accused Chetram S/o Ramsi Lal is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/38