HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 88/2026 1. Mohan Lal S/o Jansiram, aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Haripura, Tehsil Rahuwas, Police Station Rahuwas, District Dausa (Raj.). (Accused At Present Confined In District Jail Dausa). 2. Kamlesh S/o Shri Surajmal Saini, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Maliyo Ki Dhani, Khemawas, Police Station Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.). (Accused At Present Confined In District Jail Dausa). 3. Rajendra @ Raju S/o Daluram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Haripura, Police Station Rahuwas, District Dausa. (Accused At Present Confined In District Jail Dausa). ----Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vipin Sharma Mr.Amit Kumar Deshra For Respondent(s) : Mr.Shriram Dhakad, PP Mr.Rahul Sharma for Mr.Rajneesh Gupta JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/02/2026 1. The first bail application of the petitioners was rejected by this Court vide order dated 14.10.2025 while granting liberty to renew their prayer for bail, after recording the statements of the material eyewitnesses, i.e., Sohan Lal, Vinod and Kailash. 2. The instant second bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioners in connection with the FIR No.39/2025 registered at Police Station Rahuwas, District Dausa wherein they (2 of 4) [CRLMB-88/2026] have been charged for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 190 & 103(2) of the BNS. Subsequently, they have been charged for the offences under Section 191(1), 191(2), 103(1) & 117(2) of the BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after passing of the aforesaid order, charges were framed against the petitioners and during the course of trial, statements of these material witnesses PW-1 Kailash, PW-2 Sohan Lal and PW-3 Vinod Kumar have been recorded. Counsel submits that there are contradiction in their statements and they have improved their versions in their Court statement, which is contrary to their Police statements recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS and he further submits that in fact, the land in question is in possession of the petitioners and the same is non-partitioned land and in fact, the complainant side was being aggressive, hence, all of a sudden, a fight took place between the parties and cross-case has been registered against the complainant side also. Counsel submits that there was no pre-determination by the petitioners to commit the incident. Counsel submits that the petitioners are in custody since the date of their arrest and the trial will take its own time to conclude, therefore indulgence of bail be granted to the petitioners. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the arguments raised by counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and submits that there is no material change in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the allegation of causing head injury to the deceased has been levelled against the petitioners by the said three witnesses, namely, Sohan Lal, Vinod and Kailash and the same allegations were (3 of 4) [CRLMB-88/2026] levelled against the petitioners in their Police statement recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS. 4. Counsel further submits that the weapon of offence has also been recovered at their instance. Counsel submits that looking to the gravity of the matter, the petitioners do not deserve any indulgence of the bail. 5. In rebuttal, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that even the weapon of offence, which were recovered at the instance of the other co-accused persons, were also containing blood stains, but they have been enlarged on bail, hence, under these circumstances, the same indulgence may be granted to the petitioners as well. 6. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 7. Perusal of the order dated 14.10.2025 passed by this Court while deciding the first bail application submitted by the petitioners indicates that the prosecution was not clear about the fact that who has caused the injury on the head of the deceased, as this allegation has been assigned to all the three petitioners, while as per the postmortem report, the deceased has sustained only one fatal injury on his head and that is the cause of death which was the precise reason for rejection of the first bail application of the petitioners and in order to ascertain about the exact allegation, a liberty was granted to the petitioners to renew their prayer for bail, after recording of the statements of the material witnesses, i.e., Sohan Lal, Kailash and Vinod Kumar, however, even in their Court statements, they have narrated the same story, but looking to the fact that the deceased has sustained one injury, which has been assigned to all the three (4 of 4) [CRLMB-88/2026] accused persons and the instant case appears to be a case of over- exaggeration. Looking to the fact that the petitioners are in custody and the trial will take its own time to conclude and without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and appropriate to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioners under Section 483 BNSS. 5. Accordingly, the second bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners Mohan Lal S/o Jansiram, Kamlesh S/o Shri Surajmal Saini & Rajendra @ Raju S/o Daluram arrested in connection with the aforementioned FIR, may be released on bail; provided each of them furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /1