[2025:RJ-JP:8321] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2451/2025 Dhruv S/o Naresh, R/o Near Old Chambal Pul, Bar Ka Pura, Police Station Kotwali, Dholpur, (At Present Confined In District Jail Dholpur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.R. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 24/02/2025 1. This instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.571/2023, registered at Police Station Kotwali Dholpur, District Dholpur for the offence(s) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 504, 452, 307 and 302 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that the name of the accused-petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR. The FIR itself is delayed by 2 days. All the injured witnesses were examined after recording of the FIR and they have not named the accused-petitioner. The allegations of causing death of deceased Shila is specifically attributed to Bhura and later on the statement of 8 witnesses were recorded on 30.11.2024 and thereafter name of the accused-petitioner was implicated. It is also contended that [2025:RJ-JP:8321] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2451/2025] cross FIR was also lodged by the accused-petitioner against the complainant-party and the accused Kamlesh and Aakash sustained dangerous to life injures and the said cross FIR was lodged prior to the present incident, therefore chances of over implication cannot be ruled out. The accused-petitioner is in custody since long and trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the grant of bail application. It is contended that the delay in filing of FIR itself cannot be a ground to brush aside the entire prosecution story. The deceased Shila was admitted to hospital in serious condition and she died on 15.11.2024, thereafter, the report was lodged by deceased son-Ashok. It is also contended that mere non- mentioning of the name of the accused-petitioner in the FIR cannot be a ground to disbelieve the other statement of witnesses, who has clearly stated the presence of accused- petitioner. During the proceeding 8 witnesses namely; 1. Guddi, 2. Savitri, 3. Bishanpuri, 4. Mohanpuri, 5. Kailashi, 6. Bindo, 7. Shankar and 8. Arti, have categorically stated that the petitioner was present with the arms and caused injury to the deceased and to the other injured witnesses. It is also contended that 11 persons were injured and out of them 3 sustained grievous injuries, therefore, considering the above aspects, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on the record. 5. Admittedly, name of the petitioner Dhruv S/o Naresh has not been mentioned in the FIR, the other injured witnesses namely Ashok, Jaisingh, Ummed Singh, Pappu, Rajkumar, Hukum Singh, [2025:RJ-JP:8321] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2451/2025] Betali, Girriraj and Lokesh, who were examined just after lodging of the FIR has also not named the petitioner in the alleged crime. The specific allegations of causing death of deceased Shila, is against other co-accused Bhura. Considering the above fact that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR and in the statement of injured witnesses, without expressing anything further on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Dhruv S/o Naresh, in connection with No.571/2023, registered at Police Station Kotwali Dholpur, District Dholpur, shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/70