[2025:RJ-JP:21568] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1794/2025 Alam S/o Babu, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Harajpura, P.S. Masuda, District Beawar (Raj.). (At Present Confined In District Jail Beawar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta Ms. Shreya Khandal Mr. Yashovardhan Agarwal Mr. Ravi Singh For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP Mr. Dharmendra Choudhary HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 22/05/2025 1. The petitioner has preferred this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.0172/2022 registered at Police Station-Masuda, District-Ajmer for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the allegation against the petitioner is to kill the deceased-Ibrahim with the use of sharp stone. The petitioner is not named in the FIR and prosecution has implicated the petitioner only on the basis of the brain mapping test conducted during investigation. In that aspect, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the judgment delivered in the case of Selvi & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2010) 7 SCC 263, in which it has been held that brain mapping test during the investigation is not legally permissible, therefore the charge-sheet filed [2025:RJ-JP:21568] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-1794/2025] on the basis of brain mapping test is not tenable and the petitioner was implicated only on additional statements recorded with an inordinate delay of two years. The petitioner is behind the Bar since 09.10.2024. Charge-sheet has been filed. The trial of the case may take considerable time, hence the bail application of the petitioner may be allowed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and stated that as per post mortem report, the cause of death is head injury, which is evident from the seizure memo itself, hence the bail application of the petitioner may be rejected. 5. On consideration of the rival submission and material available on record and deliberating all the facts and circumstances of the case, especially in backdrop of post mortem report and seizure memo but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, I am not inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner. 6. It is evident from the trial court order-sheet that brain mapping test has been conducted with the consent of the petitioner, therefore judgment submitted by counsel for the petitioner carries no force. 7. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J Sunita/50