[2026:RJ-JP:1773] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16170/2025 Gyarsiram S/o Shrinath, R/o Gram Sangod, Police Thana San- god, District Kota (Raj.) (Presently Confine In J/c Kota, Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Mewara For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Amit Punia, PP Mr. Manish Kumawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 12/01/2026 1. The instant bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.194/2024 registered at Police Station Sangod, District Kota Rural for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323 & 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this case. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that there is no eye-witness of the incident in this matter and the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. Counsel further contends that main allegation is against co-accused persons namely- Narotam & Premchand and it appears from the record that the petitioner has been implicated in this case merely because of his relationship with the aforesaid co- [2026:RJ-JP:1773] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16170/2025] accused persons. It is further contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 22.06.2024 and further custody of the petitioner will not serve any fruitful purpose. It is further submitted that the co-accused, namely Jaswant, Bhupendra, and Mukesh, have already been granted the benefit of bail by this Court. Counsel submits that the case of the petitioner is similar to that of the co-accused persons, he thus, seeks the indulgence of bail on the ground of parity. 3. Per contra, the learned State Counsel and counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. They submit that there existed a land dispute between the petitioner and the deceased persons, which clearly establishes motive. It is submitted that two other criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner. They submit that the case of the petitioner stands on a different footing from that of the co-accused persons. Further, the forensic examination establishes that the blood detected on the petitioner’s shirt was the same as the blood found on the shirt of the deceased, Ashok, on the concrete at the place of occurrence, and on the wooden stick recovered from co-accused Narottam and Mahendra. It is submitted that the alleged incident took place on the disputed land, however, in an attempt to give the incident the appearance of an accident, the petitioner, along with the co-accused persons, left the deceased persons on the roadside. They further submit that the complainant had last seen the deceased persons in the company of the petitioner and the other co-accused persons thus, [2026:RJ-JP:1773] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16170/2025] looking to the nature and gravity of offence as well as the evidence which has come on record so far, petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail. They, thus, crave dismissal of the bail application. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the material available on record, as also considering the fact that the blood detected on the petitioner’s shirt is the same as the blood found on the shirt of the deceased- Ashok, on the concrete at the place of occurrence, and on the wooden stick recovered from co-accused Narottam and Mahendra thus, looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed. 7. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN/15