[2025:RJ-JP:31335] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13310/2024 1. Pankaj Kumar S/o Damodar Prasad, Aged About 42 Years, Resident of Bagawas Chaurasi, Tehsil Virat Nagar, District Kotputli- Behror (Raj). (At Present Confined In Sub-Jail At Kotputli, Distirct Kotputli- Behror (Raj). 2. Vikas Kumar S/o Rohitash, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Swamiyo Ki Dhani, Tan Luhakana, Tehsil Virat Nagar, District Kotputli- Behror (Raj). ( At Present Confined In Sub- Jail At Kotputli, Distirct Kotputli- Behror ( Raj). ----Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Gupta Mr. Ajatshatru Mina Ms. Apeksha Tiwari Mr. Manav Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Dave, PP with Mr. Kshitiz Tiwari Mr. Harendra Singh with Mr. Hemang Singh Sinsinwar & Mr. Shivam Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 07/08/2025 1. This instant application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS by the petitioners-accused Pankaj Kumar and Vikas Kumar in FIR No.149/2024 dated 26.07.2024 registered at P.S. Bhabru, District Kotputli-Behror whereby the petitioners- accused have charged under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of BNS. [2025:RJ-JP:31335] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-13310/2024] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated in the instant case. He referred the report and submitted that as per report, dead body is found near the field of accused Pankaj Kumar but there is no eye-witness or substantial evidence to show that deceased has ever met any encounter with petitioner accused Pankaj Kumar. He further submits that the deceased and accused were not known to each other and they were not aware about location of each other. He further submits that facts of the case indicate that to protect crop of vegetable from wild animals, a fencing was erected by petitioners accused and probably deceased came to steal bottle gourd and while running from the field he may have fallen on some hard object which resulted into his death. He referred polygraphy test of both the petitioners-accused and submits that when no evidence is found against these petitioners then they were subjected to polygraphy test and same is very normal which indicate that these petitioners have no role in death of Mohit. He further referred post mortem report and submitted that initially “electric” were not mentioned in the post mortem report but later this post mortem report was altered and “electric” was added by medical jurist which clearly indicate that to implicate both the petitioners accused the prosecution has fabricated the document. He further submitted that even the opinion of death is shown as asphyxia and same is due to fracture of hyoid bone and rupture of the trachea which is very soft tissue. He further [2025:RJ-JP:31335] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-13310/2024] submitted that the investigation is concluded and these petitioners accused are in custody since 01.10.2024. 3. Learned counsel has further referred the progress of sessions case and submitted that the trial Court has recorded statement of PW-1 Dr. Krishan Singh Shekhawat who conducted post mortem report and prepared PMR Ex.P-1. He referred his cross-examination and submitted that the reasons of death is not mentioned by the Medical Board and it is apparent that no specific opinion is available about the cause of death. He further referred possibility of sustaining injuries and submitted that deceased himself sustained injuries and for that petitioners cannot be held responsible. 4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that soon after the incident, crime scene examination report is prepared and it clearly indicate that the dead body of deceased was found in the field of petitioner accused. He further submitted that to protect crop, the petitioners accused have installed a electric shock fencing system and when it goes out of order then they have directly installed AC current to the fence. He submits that deceased was brutally assaulted and beaten in the field of petitioners- accused and he sustained multiple injures which is evident from post-mortem report. He also submitted that the sessions case is at primary stage and it is not a stage to grant bail. [2025:RJ-JP:31335] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-13310/2024] 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 7. On basis of a report filed by by complainant Kajod Mal about murder of his grand son Mohit, a report was registered and after investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against both the petitioners-accused. After framing the charge, the trial Court has examined PW-1 Dr. Krishan Singh Shekhawat. 8. We have considered post-mortem report which indicate that cause of death is kept reserve. PW-1 in his opinion before the trial Court has indicated that probably cause of death fracture of hyoid bone and rupture of the trachea. He has further agreed to some suggestions put to him during cross- examination and we have considered all these suggestions. 9. Original post mortem report along with crime scene examination report is available on record and we have gone through the report. We have also considered polygraphy test conducted by police on both the accused. It is an admitted fact that the dead body of deceased was found near field of Pankaj Kumar where he was growing bottle gourd and to protect the crop he has installed electric fence system. As per counsel for the complainant, the house of deceased is few meters away from accused, therefore, they are very well known to each other. This issue is subject matter of evidence. We have considered the entire material collected by police and also the information of both the petitioners- accused given under Section 23(2) of Evidence Act, 2023. 10. Having considered totality and facts and circumstances of case, I am of considered view that it is too early to draw any [2025:RJ-JP:31335] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-13310/2024] conclusion, therefore, looking to gravity of charge, this is not a fit case wherein indulgence of bail can be granted to the petitioners-accused. 11. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant bail application filed by petitioners 1. Pankaj Kumar and 2. Vikas Kumar is hereby dismissed. 12. Office is directed to send original FSL and PMR reports to the trial Court by registered post with acknowledgment due. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/30