[2025:RJ-JP:46816] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 14972/2025 Gaurav @ Gaurkha S/o Shri Jayram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 447B Waed No.110 Bharat Nagar, Near Of Gangaram Hospital Meel Gate Hisar Ps HTM Hisar District Hisar (Accused is in Judicial Custody in District Jail Kotputali). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta, Adv. with Ms. Sweta Soni, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 19/11/2025 1. The instant second application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein who has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 117/2025 registered at Police Station Kotputali, District Kotputali Behror for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2) & 109(1) of BNS. After completion of investigation, charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 118(1) & 103(1) of BNS and Section 4/25 of Arms Act has been filed by the investigating agency in the court concerned. 2. The first bail application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2025 with liberty to file afresh after examination of the key witnesses i.e. Dayaram, brother of the deceased and an alleged eye-witness; Medical Expert, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased; and the Doctor, who initially prepared the MLC of the deceased. [2025:RJ-JP:46816] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-14972/2025] 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid witnesses, apart from other material prosecution witnesses, have now been examined before the trial court as PW-1 to PW-3. Hence, the present second bail application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner. 4. It is contended that a perusal of the testimony of the so- called eye-witness as well as the material collected during investigation, reflected in the charge sheet, reveals that the entire case has falsely been concocted against the petitioner. Counsel highlights that the FIR itself was lodged five days after the alleged incident and notably does not contain the petitioner’s name. Learned counsel further emphasizes that it is highly suspicious that the petitioner’s name surfaced abruptly the very next day in the complainant’s subsequent statement reordered under section 180 of BNSS (161 Cr.P.C.), wherein it was additionally alleged that a woman was seated in the vehicle, in which the assailant fled and that she had shouted, “Gaurav, what have you done?” at the time of the incident. Counsel stresses that the FIR makes no mention whatsoever of any woman being present at the scene, thereby casting further doubt on the prosecution’s version. Learned counsel contends that from the charge sheet, the petitioner was arrested on 08.03.2025 and the alleged recovery of the knife (the purported weapon of offence) was effected on 13.03.2025 at his instance. This, he says, is wholly unreliable and bereft of evidentiary value since it was made twenty-two days after the incident, during which period the petitioner allegedly had ample opportunity to destroy or conceal the weapon. It is argued that no prudent person would retain such incriminating evidence [2025:RJ-JP:46816] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-14972/2025] for such a long period of time, which further weakens the prosecution's claim. 5. It is further contended that the test identification parade (for short “TIP”) held in respect of the petitioner is rendered meaningless, as the petitioner had already been shown to the witness at the police station before holding the TIP, thus vitiating its sanctity. Counsel contends that even at the time of his testimony during the trial, the complainant has not stated that the petitioner has committed the offence, which is the basic mode of identification in criminal law. Counsel argues that in a case where the accused is a stranger to the witness, the dock identification assumes significant importance; and it is necessary for the witness to state that the person in the dock committed the crime. In the absence of this, the prosecution's case effects adversely. Learned counsel further submits that the Medical Expert, who initially examined the deceased at the time of preparing the MLC recorded only one injury on the body of the deceased, whereas the postmortem report prepared later refers to four injuries and this, counsel contends, seriously erodes the veracity of the prosecution case. The cause of death, which is stated to be Septicemic Shock, leaves open the possibility that death may have resulted from medical negligence during the course of treatment. Assuming the prosecution case to be accepted in its entirety, the offence, at best, would fall under Section 304 IPC rather than Section 302 IPC. Counsel assures that the petitioner would abide by all the conditions which may be imposed by this Court in the event of his release on bail. [2025:RJ-JP:46816] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-14972/2025] 6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application with vehemence, submitting that the petitioner is facing grave allegations of having stabbed the deceased to death. He further points out that the petitioner has four criminal antecedents and apprehends that the petitioner may abscond during trial or tamper with the witnesses if enlarged on bail. 7. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by both sides and carefully perused the charge-sheet and the material available on record. 8. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of allegations, the manner in which the incident is stated to have occurred, the absence of any allegation of repeated blows, the inconsistencies highlighted by the defence, and the period of custody already undergone by the petitioner, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this second bail application. 9. Accordingly, this second bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Gaurav @ Gaurkha S/o Shri Jayram shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 10. Considering the criminal antecedents of the accused- [2025:RJ-JP:46816] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-14972/2025] petitioner, it is made clear that he shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first and third week of every month in the concerned police station, till conclusion of the trial. It is further directed that petitioner shall share his mobile number (in use) to the trial Court and Investigating Agency and he shall keep his mobile phone in active mode and he shall not switch off his mobile phone intentionally for longer period. 11. Concerned SHO shall enter attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. In case, the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 12. If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court. 13. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 14. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /752