[2025:RJ-JP:9315] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.3091/2025 Satyanarayan @ Sattu S/o Ramesh Chand, R/o Bekri Wali Gali, Prem Nagar- Second, Police Station Udhyog Nagar, District Kota City (Raj.) (At Present In Central Jail, Kota). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagdish Singh Chauhan, Adv. For Respondent(s) For Complainant : : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP Mr. Sudarshan Kumar Laddha, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 04/03/2025 1. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the FIR, the name of the accused-petitioner is not mentioned and also in the Parchabayan of the deceased the name of the accused- petitioner was not mentioned. The accused-petitioner has been later on falsely implicated in the case as the complainant Mohit Jain, who is son of the deceased has improved his statement and stated the name of the accused-petitioner as one of the culprit in causing assault to the complainant along with the other co- accused. It is also contended that the statement of other eye- witnesses i.e., wife of the deceased Seema Jain was recorded on 11.10.2024, whereas the incident took place on 21.09.2024. It is further contended that the deceased remained hospitalized for almost 10 days in the Hospital and died due to septicemic. The [2025:RJ-JP:9315] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3091/2025] injuries caused to the deceased were not sufficient to cause death of the deceased, the accused-petitioner is behind the bars since 21.10.2024 and trial/investigation of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the bail application of the accused- petitioner may be allowed. 2. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant have opposed the grant of bail application. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the complainant that eye-witnesses Mohit Jain and Seema Jain in their statement rendered under Section 180 of BNSS has clearly stated that the deceased was assaulted by the accused-petitioner and the other two co-accused. The deceased died due to grievous injuries sustained at his back and other body parts. At this instance, it cannot be said that the accused-petitioner is falsely implicated in the case, though in the Parchabayan of the deceased also, name of the accused petitioner was not mentioned along with the other two accused in causing the injuries to the deceased but subsequently the complainant Mohit Jain in his statement has clearly stated the presence of the petitioner. It is also contended that the accused-petitioner is having criminal record and against him 5 cases under the various offences are registered, therefore, considering the gravity of the offence, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on the record. 5. It is not desirable to express anything on the merits of the case, the eye-witnesses Mohit Jain and Seema Jain have named the accused-petitioner as one of the culprit, the deceased Ashok [2025:RJ-JP:9315] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3091/2025] Jain sustained 7 injuries on his body. In the postmortem report, it is opined by the medical board that the accused-petitioner died due to septic shock as result of ante-mortem bodily injuries and its consequences, therefore, considering the above facts this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on the bail. 6. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-166