[2025:RJ-JP:49039] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12732/2025 Atar Singh S/o Netram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Khohari, Police Station Sadar Deeg, District Deeg. (At Present Confined In District Jail Deeg) ----Applicant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14957/2025 Digmbar Singh S/o Puran Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Khohari, Police Station Sadar Deeg. District Deeg (Raj) (At Present Confined At Central Jail Bharatpur) ----Applicant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Applicant(s) : Mr. Suresh Pareek, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. S.L. Sharma Mr. Nikhlesh Katara For State For Complainant : : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP with Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Vedant Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 03/12/2025 1. These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-applicants. The accused-applicants were arrested in connection with FIR No.21/2025 registered at Police Station Sadar Deeg, District Deeg for the offence(s) under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 109(1), 331(8) of BNS. [2025:RJ-JP:49039] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-12732/2025] 2. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Suresh Pareek has submitted that the applicant-Atar Singh is a young man, aged about 35 years and is sole bread earner for the family. It is submitted that the applicant is behind the bars from past eight and a half months. It is submitted charge-sheet has already been filed and trial will take a long time. It is submitted that present is a case of cross FIR and even the applicant has suffered severe injuries. It is also submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated and he was silent spectator and his case in the charge sheet is under Section 109 and not under Section 103. 3. It is submitted that in the light of above, considering overall facts and circumstances, the applicant should be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant- Digmbar Singh has submitted that he is also a young man, aged about 35 years and is sole bread earner of his family. It is submitted that the injury which is assigned to him is of not qua the deceased, but of firing firearm. It is submitted he is having no antecedents. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed and he is behind the bars ever since three and a half months. It is submitted that the applicant has also sustained injuries and it is a case of cross FIR. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant- Mr. Vedant Sharma and learned Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the bail applications. It is submitted that the case has its own root and out of vindictiveness, on being bail granted to three persons, namely, Pradeep, Gaurav and Hariom, the present incidence has occurred. It is submitted that the audacity of the applicants was that they have not accepted the orders of bail and have attacked [2025:RJ-JP:49039] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-12732/2025] the complainant. It is submitted that the applicants have acted in dire aggression and they have used firearms in which one of the person died. It is also submitted that there is existence and presence of applicants at the crime, which occurred in two phases. It is submitted one of the legs of the co-accused have been imputed. It is submitted that bail of co-accused has been rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 01.08.2025. 6. It is also submitted that the test for grant of bail is threefold:- foremost being the gravity of the offense, second being influence on witnesses and last tampering with evidences and witnesses and chances of being absconded. It is submitted that if bail is granted at this stage, Atar Singh who is having strong antecedents of similar nature may influence the trial. It is submitted that the gravity of offence and presence at the place time of incidence prima facie give the rejection of bail. 7. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, considering that allegations of heinous nature are levelled; that the bail of co-accused has been rejected vide order dated 01.08.2025; and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and material on record but without commenting on merits/demerits of the case, this court is not inclined to allow the bail application. 8. Accordingly, the bail applications are dismissed. 9. A copy of this order be placed in connected file. (SAMEER JAIN),J CHANDAN /45-46