[2026:RJ-JP:13844] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 993/2026 Narsingh Alias Lala Alias Dharmendra S/o Ramesh, Age 26 Years, R/o Karai, Police Station Mamchari, District Karauli, Rajasthan (Presently Lodged At Jail At Gangapurcity) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadaun with Mr. Anurag Chahar Mr. Harshit Kakani HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 02/04/2026 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 366/2023 registered at Police Station Gangapur City District Gangapur City for the offences under Sections 143, 452, 323, 307, 302, 506 of IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel contends that other co-accused persons, who have been similarly named in the FIR, have already been enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that the FIR does not contain any specific allegation attributing the act of firing upon the deceased, Hetram, to the present petitioner. Learned counsel has argued [2026:RJ-JP:13844] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-993/2026] that although injured witness PW-3 Chetram and PW-14 Mosami Bai have deposed against the petitioner in their statements before the Court, their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded after a delay of approximately 20 days. It is also contended that another eye-witness, PW-16 Balu Ram, has attributed the act of firing causing the fatal injury to a co-accused, namely Hemendra. Furthermore, it is submitted that PW-6 Manraj and PW-7 Shivsingh, cited as eye-witnesses, have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel additionally submits that the alleged recovery of the weapon at the instance of the petitioner does not incriminate him, inasmuch as the FSL report indicates that the bullets recovered from the body of the deceased do not match the firearm allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the accused–petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.01.2024, and the conclusion of trial is likely to take a considerable period of time. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that eye-witnesses, namely PW-3 Chetram Meena and PW-14 Mosami Bai, in their depositions before the learned trial Court, have categorically and unequivocally stated that the present petitioner fired a gunshot at the deceased, Hetram, which resulted in his death. It is further contended that, pursuant to the information furnished by the petitioner, a firearm was recovered, and the said recovery has been duly corroborated by the recovery [2026:RJ-JP:13844] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-993/2026] witnesses, thereby lending credence to the prosecution case. It is also argued that the alleged delay on the part of the investigating agency in recording the statements of the eye-witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not of material consequence, inasmuch as the eye-witnesses have, in clear and unambiguous terms, deposed against the petitioner before the Court. Learned counsel further submits that the case of the present petitioner stands on a different footing and is clearly distinguishable from that of the co- accused who have been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench, in view of the specific role attributed to the petitioner in the commission of the offence. In light of the aforesaid submissions, it is prayed that the present bail application, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. Upon consideration of the submissions made and perusal of the material available on record, it is observed that the FIR does not contain any specific narration attributing the act of firing the gunshot injury to the deceased to the present petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the statements of the eye-witnesses, namely PW-14 Mosami Bai and PW-16 Balu Ram, under Section 161 Cr.P.C., were recorded on 10.10.2023, i.e., with a delay of approximately 20 days. Further, it is noteworthy that PW-3 Chetram Meena, the complainant, in his initial version recorded on the date of registration of the FIR, has not specifically alleged that the petitioner caused the gunshot injury to the deceased Hetram. Additionally, other cited eye-witnesses, PW-6 Manraj and PW-7 Shivsingh, have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. In view of the aforesaid facts and [2026:RJ-JP:13844] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-993/2026] circumstances, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems 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 Narsingh Alias Lala Alias Dharmendra S/o Ramesh, in connection with FIR No. 366/2023 registered at Police Station Gangapur City District Gangapur City 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. The concerned trial Judge shall verify the address and contact details of the sureties through concerned SHO before releasing the accused-petitioners on bail. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J ashu /35