[2026:RJ-JP:3413] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16038/2025 Mangilal Gurjar S/o Kanhaiyalal Gurjar, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Opposite Punjab National Bank, Faysagar Road, Ajmer At Present Lodged In The Central Jail, Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg, Adv. For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Amit Punia, PP Mr. Deepak Parashar, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 1. Date of conclusion of arguments : 08.01.2026 2. Date on which the judgment was reserved : 08.01.2026 3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced : Full Judgment 4. Date of pronouncement : 28.01.2026 **** 1. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.97/2025 registered at Police Station Haribhau Upadhyay Nagar, District Ajmer for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 109(1), 303(2), 324(4), 324(5) & 189(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. After completion of investigation police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 109(1), 303(2), 324(4), 324(5), 111(2)(b), 61(2) & 189(2) of the BNS, 2023. [2026:RJ-JP:3413] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16038/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that no evidence is available on record against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has neither a land dispute with the victim, nor his name mentioned in the First Information Report. The petitioner has been portrayed as a conspirator in the charge- sheet. Counsel submits that it is clear from the charge-sheet that the petitioner was not present at the scene of the crime, and mere telephonic communication with the co-accused, by itself, does not establish the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged offence. The petitioner has been in custody since 09.10.2025 and keeping him in further custody will not serve any fruitful purpose. The petitioner is ready to comply with all conditions that may be imposed by this Court. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the bail application. They submit that the petitioner is the mastermind of the entire incident. They submit that the victim had a land dispute with a co-accused in the present case, and on account of the said dispute, the co-accused conspired with the petitioner to teach the complainant a lesson. In pursuance of that conspiracy, the petitioner hired a gang by paying them money to break the complainant's hands and legs. The gang members brutally assaulted the complainant, in which the victim suffered several serious injuries, and one of his leg was completely amputated. Besides, the petitioner is a person of criminal nature against whom four other cases have previously been registered. It has also come on record that gang leader had [2026:RJ-JP:3413] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16038/2025] a conversation with the petitioner soon before and immediately after the incident, which is evident from the call details collected by the investigating agency during the course of investigation. 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 at bar, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet as well as injury report and x-ray reports of injured Manoj Nankani, according to which, injuries No.1, 2, 4 & 6 are found to be grievous in nature and one of his leg was completely amputated; and the fact that gang leader had a conversation with the present petitioner soon before and immediately after the incident as evident from the call details collected by the investigating agency during the course of investigation; so also the criminal antecedents of the petitioner; and 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 disposal 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 /-