[2025:RJ-JP:4951] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1681/2025 Pappuram S/o Sh. Purannath, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Bhitarli Gavandi, Police Station Neem Ka Thana Sadar, District Sikar (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Neem Ka Thana) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikash Kumar Jakhar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 04/02/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.33/2023 registered at Police Station Neem Ka Thana Sadar, District Sikar for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354 & 34 of IPC, 1860. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submits that the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, as there is no eye-witness of the alleged incident. The alleged incident took place on 16.01.2023 and the FIR was lodged on 18.01.2023. Initially the deceased was taken to the SMS hospital where it was informed by the police authorities that she has sustained injury on account of falling from hill. Learned counsel submits that later on [2025:RJ-JP:4951] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1681/2025] 14.02.2023, victim died and offence under Section 302 of IPC was added. According to the post mortem report, only one injury was found on the head of the deceased and the same was the cause of death. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has been made accused simply on the fact that some of the villagers have stated in their statements that they saw the petitioner going in the directions where the deceased was grazing the goats. Learned counsel also submits that all these statements recorded after a delay of more than two months for which no proper explanation is available on record. Petitioner is in custody since 12.05.2023. Till date, only eight witnesses have been examined out of twenty one cited prosecution witnesses. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, as also considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet and the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 12.05.2023; only eight witnesses have been examined out of twenty one cited prosecution witnesses & trial will take time in its conclusion, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner – Pappuram S/o Shri Purannath, shall [2025:RJ-JP:4951] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1681/2025] 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. 7. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN), J Mohita /239