[2025:RJ-JP:28184] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 3252/2025 Vaseem Ahmad S/o Asrar Ahmad, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Chahediya, Police Station Anta, District Baran (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In District Jail, Baran) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Juned Mirja S/o Ajahar Mirja, R/o Pamlakhedi, Sangod, Kota Rural, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta Mr. Naman Yadav Mr. Saurabh Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 28/07/2025 The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 435/2022 registered at Police Station Anta, District Baran for the offence(s) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 427, 302 and 120-B of IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the order dated 09.09.2024 passed by Special Judge SC/ST Cases, Baran Raj. The same is taken on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's first bail application was dismissed by this court vide order dated 10.01.2024, observing that in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. made by Jubed and [2025:RJ-JP:28184] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-3252/2025] Kasid, they have named the petitioner and specifically stated that the petitioner also fired at the deceased. It is also contended that PW-1 Junaid Mirza in his statement specifically attributed injury caused to deceased by fire arm to co-accused Aabid and the statement of the PW-6 Kasid Mirza is omnibus in nature and he has not specified that who caused injury to deceased Akhtar at his leg. It is also contended that there is only two fire arm injuries caused to deceased Akhtar. In the postmortem report also doctor has clearly opined two fire arm injuries i.e. injury No. 10 and 11 and other injuries were not caused by fire arm. It is also argued that no fire arm was recovered from the petitioner's possession, however a stick was recovered. The allegations in the FIR are omnibus in nature, not specific and out of 10 named persons in the FIR four have been charge-sheeted. In the FIR, it is specifically stated that Naeem and Abrar also open fire at Akhtar, both the accused persons were left out by the police and not charge-sheeted. Similarly police has charge-sheeted some other persons who were not named in the FIR. It is also contended that co-accused Mohd. Asad @ Pintu and Asrar have been enlarged on bail. The accused-petitioner is in custody since 20.12.2022 and out of 36 cited witnesses only eight witnesses have been examined. It is also contended that the other witnesses cited in the prosecution list are hearsay witnesses and not the eye- witnesses. The statement of eye witnesses Junaid Mirza and Kasid are not trustworthy, further trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the second bail application of the accused- petitioner may be allowed. [2025:RJ-JP:28184] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-3252/2025] Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the grant of bail application and contended that PW-1 Junaid and PW-6 Kasid in their court statement have specifically stated that petitioner alongwith the other co-accused participated in the assault and caused injuries to deceased Akhtar. It is also contended that as per the post mortem report deceased AKhtar sustained 12 injuries and cumulative result of injuries resulted into the death of the deceased. The participation of the petitioner in the alleged crime is apparent from the statement of witnesses Junaid and Kasid, merely because injuries sustained to deceased Akhtar at his leg with the aid of fire-arm is attributed to co-accused Aabid it cannot be said that petitioner's presence at the place of occurrence was doubtful. It is also contended that from petitioner' information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act a stick was recovered therefore, looking to the gravity of the offence, the second bail application of the accused-petitioner deserves to be dismissed. Heard and perused the material available on record. It is not desirable to express anything on the merits of the case. The statements of two eye witnesses have already been recorded and rest of the witnesses cited regarding commission of offence by the prosecution are not the eye witnesses rather about the hearsay version of the incident. The specific fire arm injury caused to deceased Akhtar is attributed to co-accused Aabid. The other similarly placed co-accused Asrar and Asad @ Pintu have already been enlarged on bail. The petitioner is in custody since 20.12.2022 and out of 36 cited witnesses only 8 have been examined till now and further trial of the case may take [2025:RJ-JP:28184] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-3252/2025] considerable time, therefore, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the second bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Vaseem Ahmad S/o Asrar Ahmad, in connection with FIR No. 435/2022 registered at Police Station Anta, District Baran 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 as and when called upon to do so. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J ashu /1