[2026:RJ-JP:1262] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 16954/2025 Pankaj Kumar Meena S/o Damodar Prasad Meena, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Bagawas Chaurasi, P.s. Bhabru, Tehsil Virat Nagar, At P Resent District Kotputali-Viratnagar (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Sub Jail At Kotputli, District Kotputli-Behror (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, PP Mr. Harendra Singh Mr. Shivam Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 12/01/2026 1. This second application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS by the petitioners-accused Pankaj Kumar Meena S/o Damodar Prasad Meena in FIR No. 149/2024 dated 26.07.2024 registered at P.S. Bhabru, District Kotputli- Behror whereby the petitioners-accused have charged under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there is no chance of applicant accused fleeing from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the applicant [2026:RJ-JP:1262] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-16954/2025] undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the order dated 07.08.2025, several witnesses were examined by the prosecution and he has filed copies of eight witnesses recorded so far. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon the statements of PW-1, Dr. Krishan Singh, PW-2, Dr. Ramesh Kumar Bharti, and PW-3, Dr. Saroj, and submitted that the injuries were not caused by any electric burn; rather, the injuries were sustained when the deceased was fleeing from the field. He also submitted that the doctors have admitted a fact that the possibility cannot be ruled out of felling of victim, while fleeing from the field and also when the body was recovered from the barbed fence, as hyoid bone may be tagged in one of the barbed fence and got fractured along with the trachea. He also referred to the statements, in particular the cross-examination of the complainant and other witnesses, and submitted that the role and involvement of the present petitioner is neither established nor proved, and the present petitioner is in custody since his arrest. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. 5. Learned counsel for complainant has opposed the bail application and submitted that this Hon’ble Court has already considered the grounds in the order dated 07.08.2025 and no new ground has arisen for consideration on bail. [2026:RJ-JP:1262] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-16954/2025] 6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant accused, complainant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties. 7. The first bail application of the present petitioner and co- accused Vikas Kumar was considered by this Court on 7.8.2025, and observed as under: “7.On basis of a report filed by by complainant Kajod Mal about murder of his grand son Mohit, a report was registered and after investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against both the petitioners-accused. After framing the charge, the trial Court has examined PW-1 Dr. Krishan Singh Shekhawat. 8.We have considered post-mortem report which indicate that cause of death is kept reserve. PW-1 in his opinion before the trial Court has indicated that probably cause of death fracture of hyoid bone and rupture of the trachea. He has further agreed to some suggestions put to him during cross- examination and we have considered all these suggestions. 9.Original post mortem report along with crime scene examination report is available on record and we have gone through the report. We have also considered polygraphy test conducted by police on both the accused. It is an admitted fact that the dead body of deceased was found near field of Pankaj Kumar where he was growing bottle gourd and to protect the crop he has installed electric fence system. As per counsel for the complainant, the house of deceased is few meters away from accused, therefore, they are very well known to each other. This issue is subject matter of evidence. We have considered the entire material collected by police and also the information of both the petitioners-accused given under Section 23(2) of Evidence Act, 2023.” 8. We have considered the statements of PW-1 Dr. Krishan Singh Shekhawat, PW-2 Dr. Ramesh Kumar Bharti, PW-3 Dr. Saroj, PW-5 Ramkishan, and PW-7 Kajodmal Meena. We have also considered the statements of other witnesses, [2026:RJ-JP:1262] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-16954/2025] namely PW-4 Anil Kumar, PW-6 Jagdish Prasad, and PW-8 Rakesh. 9. At this stage, it is not possible for us to express any opinion on the merits of the case, in particular the admissions in cross-examination and also the case of cause of death. The reason of death, as explained by PW-1 to PW-3 in their evidence, and also the PMR report Exhibit P-1, as prepared by them, along with other documents, as exhibited by PW-1, clearly reflect that the fracture of the hyoid and rupture of the trachea was the result of force. 10. The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicant in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused on bail. 11. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicant accused at this stage. 12. Accordingly, the second application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Pankaj Kumar Meena S/o Damodar Prasad Meena is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /4