[2025:RJ-JP:45693] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6108/2025 Vikram Kumar Gurjar @ Murari @ Murra Gurjar S/o Mewaram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Reda Ki Dhani, Tan Sirohi, Police Station Chandwaji, Jaipur District. (Presently Accused Petitioner Confined In District Jail, Jaipur). ----Accused-Applicant Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Non-Applicant For Applicant(s) : Mr. Deepak Chauhan with Mr. Sahil Rajpurohit Ms. Riya Singh Chauhan Mr. Chinmaya Mudgal For Non-Applicant(s) : Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Ms. Arti Sharma, PP Mr. Anish Bhadala for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 13/11/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-applicant. The accused-applicant was arrested in connection with FIR No. 288/2024 registered at Police Station Chandwaji District Jaipur Rural for the offence(s) under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 109(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has submitted that applicant is 28 years of age and sole bread earner of the family. It is submitted that the applicant is having no criminal antecedent registered against him and that the applicant is behind bars ever-since 07.09.2024. It is submitted that charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take its own time. It is next submitted that two eye witnesses (primary witnesses) namely Kajodmal and [2025:RJ-JP:45693] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-6108/2025] Roshan Garhwal, who were injured as alleged have turned hostile and are not supporting the story of prosecution. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged with a delay and the initial version was censored out. It is submitted that in light of the above facts, applicant should be enlarged on bail. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor along with learned counsel for the complainant have stoutly opposed the instant bail application and have unanimously submitted that the co-accused Rakesh Kumar and Kamlesh’ bails under akin facts and circumstances have been rejected. It is next submitted that two accused persons namely Rajendra and Kaluram are absconding, rather influencing the trial, resultant to which two witnesses have tuned hostile. It is submitted that if the applicant is enlarged on bail, he might also tamper the evidences and influence the trial, while threatening the witnesses. It is submitted that the matter is heinous in nature as allegations under Section 103 BNS wherein one of the victims has expired and another has sustained grievous injuries. It is lastly submitted that there are other two witnesses, who are also restrained from given Court statements namely Jaynarayan and Rudmal. 4. Heard and considered. 5. Considering the overall facts, and taking note of the fact that there is a probability that the applicant might hinder the trial and coerce the witnesses; that the bail of co-accused has been rejected; that in the instant matter allegations of heinous nature are leveled, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused- applicant on bail at this stage. [2025:RJ-JP:45693] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-6108/2025] 6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is dismissed at this stage. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK/9