[2026:RJ-JP:3252] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 947/2026 Mukut Bihari S/o Heeralal, Aged About 75 Years, R/o Village Jhali Ji Ka Barana, P.s. Gendoli, District Bundi (Raj.) (At Present Confined In District Jail Bundi Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Lal Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 23/01/2026 1. This bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with FIR No.40/2025 registered at Police Station Gendoli, District Bundi for the offence punishable u/S 115(2), 126(2), 110 & 189(2) of BNS. 2. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the challan papers. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the accused petitioner that there is no allegation against the accused petitioner of causing any injury to the deceased. He also submitted that the accused petitioner is an old aged person of 75 years. It is also submitted that the case of the present accused person is in no manner distinguishable from the case of the accused persons [2026:RJ-JP:3252] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-947/2026] namely Kudrat, Jaswant @ Ranjeet and Santosh Bai, who have already been enlarged on bail. 4. It is also submitted by the counsel that there is a land dispute in between the accused petitioner and the deceased who are the brother. He also submitted that the complainant-eye witness-Hariom has already been examined as PW-1. During the examination before the trial Court, the material witness-Hariom- PW-1 has not made any specific allegation against the accused petitioner of causing any particular injury to the deceased. Counsel also submitted that the material witness has admitted the fact of land dispute in between the accused petitioner and the deceased. The said witness has also admitted in cross- examination that due to hot talk, they became aggressive and the incident has taken place all of a sudden. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that as per the contents of the FIR, it is the accused petitioner who has called the other co-accused for committing the offence. 6. The Court has gone through the challan papers as well as the statements of PW-1-Hariom, who is the son of the deceased and the eye witness. 7. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly the fact that the accused petitioner is an old aged person of 75 years and there is no specific overt act assigned to him and so also the version of the material witness-Hariom, this Court, without expressing any [2026:RJ-JP:3252] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-947/2026] opinion on merits/demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused petitioners on bail. 8. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided that he furnishes a personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only), together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court or any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Gaurav Srivastava /139