[2026:RJ-JP:9496] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 16375/2025 Chandrabhan @ Channi S/o Beedharam, R/o Village Bhairo Ka Pura, Police Station Kolari, District Dholpur. (At Present Confined In District Jail Dholpur). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Singhal, Adv., with Ms. Saroj Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 05/03/2026 1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.163/2024 registered at Police Station Kolari, District Dholpur for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge- sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 302 and 34 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of injured witnesses as well as eye witnesses. Now, injured witnesses as well as eye witnesses have been examined during the course of the trial. Thus, this second bail application has been preferred by the petitioner. [2026:RJ-JP:9496] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16375/2025] 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that Doctor, who conducted the postmortem has also been examined. He further submits that it is a case of sole injury, which is attributed to three different persons. He argues that one Virendra @ Karua has already been granted benefit of bail by this Court and other person namely Ram Lal has not been charge- sheeted by the police. He further argues that alleged incident occurred on account of the land dispute between the parties and cross-cases have been registered between them. He further submits that it is apparent from the testimony of the witnesses that they have improved their version during the course of trial. He contends that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. He further contends that petitioner is in custody since 14.05.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is responsible to cause the sole injury on the head of the deceased and according to the postmortem report, cause of death is head injury. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that according to the testimony of the medical expert, who conducted the postmortem report, no fracture was found on the head of the deceased and cause of death was excessive bleeding and the deceased’s life could have been saved with timely treatment. [2026:RJ-JP:9496] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16375/2025] 6. I have considered the contentions. 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the material available on record including testimony of the witnesses recorded so far and the fact that it is a case of sole injury, which is attributed to three different persons including petitioner; other co- accused Virendra @ Karua has been granted benefit of bail by this Court; absence of criminal antecedents and trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow this second bail application. 8. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Chandrabhan @ Channi S/o Beedharam shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 9. The observations made herein above are only for decision of this second bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/26