[2026:RJ-JP:16754] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 34/2026 Rahees S/o Shri Fazra @ Fazru, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Mamla Ka Bas, Bhadoli, P.s. Malakhera, District Alwar (Rajasthan) (Accused Presently Confined In Central Jail, Alwar). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.A. Naqvi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Syed Adil Naqvi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP, Mr. Anil Kumar Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 21/04/2026 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 127/2025 registered at Police Station Malakheda, District Alwar for the offences under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2) and 74 of BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 27.08.2025. It is further contended that the Court while granting bail to other co-accused recorded the arguments advanced by the co-accused counsel, that the specific allegation of causing injuries to deceased Akbari is against the other co-accused Rahees Khan i.e., the present petitioner. It is [2026:RJ-JP:16754] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-34/2026] also contended that after the co-accused have been enlarged on bail, prosecution has examined witnesses PW-2 Noordeen, PW-3 Mausam, PW-12 Farzin and PW-13 Farjina, who were present at the place of occurrence and all were cited as injured witness by the prosecution. It is also contended that though during investigation, all the aforesaid witnesses in their statement rendered under Section 180 of BNSS have specifically alleged that the petitioner caused injury to deceased Akbari at her head, however, in their deposition before the Court, they have levelled omnibus allegation against the present petitioner along with the other co-accused. It is also contended that during the cross- examination also, all the witnesses have refuted that they specifically stated that the injury to the deceased Akbari was caused by the present petitioner. It is also contended that in the FIR also, the allegation of causing injuries to deceased Akbari and other injured were omnibus in nature and, apart from the charge- sheeted, 04 accused persons, other persons also came with the petitioner and other co-accused and were involved in the alleged crime. It is also stated that in the FIR it was stated that all the accused persons came together with farsa, tanchi and firearms with them. It is also contended that the injury sustained to deceased body were found to be caused by blunt weapon. It is also contended that deceased sustained only 2 injuries, one at her head and other one on the left shoulder and the cause of death of the deceased is opined to be the injury sustained at her head. It is also contended that in the FIR, it was also alleged that the petitioner molested Sahruna and came with the intention to commit rape upon her, however, the investigating agency [2026:RJ-JP:16754] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-34/2026] concluded that there was a dispute between the parties with regard to the transformer. It is also contended that the injured witnesses in their examination-in-chief have deposed before the Court that there was a dispute between the complainant's party and the accused party with regard to the transformer. It is also contended that though from petitioner instance, 'lathi' was recovered but it was never sent to forensic analysis. In the forensic report, the blood stained was found in a 'lathi' which was recovered from the instance of the other co-accused Sarjeet, who has already been enlarged on bail. It is also contended that the accused-party and the complainant's party are close relative and out of 31 cited prosecution witnesses, only 13 witnesses have been examined and further trial of the case may take considerable time, the accused-petitioner is in custody since 19.06.2025, therefore, considering the aforesaid facts, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. It is contended by learned counsel for the complainant that previously, while arguing upon the bail application of the other co-accused, it was recorded that the petitioner has caused injuries at the head of the deceased Akbari which caused her death. It is also contended that in a case of unlawful assembly, if such analogy is taken then everybody would get the benefit of bail. It is also contended that all the eye witnesses, including the injured witness in their deposition before the Court have stated that the petitioner along with the other co-accused caused injuries to deceased Akbari and to the other injured, therefore, considering the nature of offence [2026:RJ-JP:16754] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-34/2026] and specific statement of the witnesses recorded before the trial Court, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. It is not desirable to express anything on the merits of the case. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties and after going through the statement of witnesses examined before the Court and other statement recorded under Section 180 of BNSS, this Court found that in the statement rendered under Section 180 of BNSS, there are specific allegation against the present petitioner, however, in the deposition before the Court, the witnesses have alleged that the petitioner along with the other co-accused have caused injury to the injured. It is also noticeable that at the instance of the petitioner a lathi was recovered but it was never sent to forensic science laboratory analysis. It is also apparent that deceased Akbari sustained two injuries, out of which, the injury at her head was found to be fatal and became the reason of her death. The assertion in the FIR is omnibus in nature and also include other persons who were exonerated during investigation by the investigating agency, therefore, considering the aforesaid facts, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Rahees S/o Shri Fazra @ Fazru, in connection with FIR No. 127/2025 registered at Police Station Malakheda, District Alwar, shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the [2026:RJ-JP:16754] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-34/2026] satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/4