[2025:RJ-JP:16158] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 3097/2025 Prahlad Singh S/o Shri Hanuman Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Near Meena Ki Chakki, Rajaredi, Police Station Madanganj, District Ajmer. (At Present In Central Jail, Ajmer). ----Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Savita Nathawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, Public Prosecutor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 15/04/2025 1. The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No.154/2024 registered at Police Station Madanganj, District Ajmer for the offences under Sections 147, 323, 504, 143, 307 and 452 IPC. 2. First bail application of the petitioner bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.6680/2024 was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 10.07.2024 with liberty to file fresh bail application after filing of the challan. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offences as alleged against the accused-petitioner does not travel beyond offence under Section 325 IPC. She further submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 08.05.2024. She also submits that the alleged incident has taken place in sudden provocation as a retaliation to the beating given by the [2025:RJ-JP:16158] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3097/2025] complainant party to the son of the petitioner, namely, Manish Singh who is a councillor. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the injuries caused to the complainant party are of blunt weapon which speaks that the accused-party was having no intention to cause any injury which may be dangerous to life and therefore, no offence under Section 307 is made out against the accused-petitioner. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submits that the manner in which the offence has been committed by the accused party with intention to grab the public land and caused injuries to the complainant party while they are trying to save the public land therefore, he does not deserve to be enlarged on bail. 6. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material available on record. 7. The allegation against the accused-petitioner is that he alongwith other persons came on the spot and made attack on the complainant party and caused injuries. 8. On perusal of the medical evidence, it is found that the accused-party has also caused injuries on the vital part of the injured person and the injuries sustained by the injured-Roopsingh has been opined to be endangering the life of victim as well as grievous in nature. The injured-Roopsingh has sustained two grievous injuries. The injured-Bajrang Singh has also sustained six injuries, out of which, two has been opined to be grievous in nature. 9. On perusal of the charge-sheet, it has come out that the son of the petitioner is a councillor. The accused party came together [2025:RJ-JP:16158] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3097/2025] alongwith JCB machine so as to grab the public land and when their act opposed by the complainant party, they made attack on them and inflicted injuries. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the JCB machine was of the Municipal Corporation and was sent to remove the encroachment. There is nothing on record that the JCB machine was sent by the Municipal Corporation to remove the encroachments which clearly speaks that Manish Singh who is son of the accused-petitioner and councillor of the Municipal Corporation has misused his power and without any proceedings drawn on record of the Municipal Corporation has taken the JCB machine of the Municipal Corporation on the spot which clearly speaks it was an attempt to grab the public land whereas, councillor was supposed to secure the public land but in the present case, he himself prima-facie, found to be involved in grabbing the public land. 11. Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is also supposed to ensure the fair trial of the matter. 12. Hence, this Court looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as noted above and ensure fair trial of the matter, is not inclined to enlarged the accused-petitioner on bail. 13. Accordingly, this second bail application is dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /8