[2026:RJ-JP:12442] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 1088/2026 Devendra Kacahawa S/o Mohanlal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Near Shiv Mandir, Palbichla, Ajmer ( At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gurpreet Singh Sodhi, through VC with Mr. Chandrashekhar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreeram Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 24/03/2026 1. This is the third bail application. The second bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 06.01.2026. 2. The petitioner has preferred this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.72/2025 registered at Police Station Alwar Gate, Ajmer for the offence under Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 109(1) of BNS. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the present case, material witnesses have been examined and their evidence are full of contradictions and inconsistencies. He argued that there was no cogent evidence to establish direct involvement of the present [2026:RJ-JP:12442] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1088/2026] petitioner in causing fatal injury to deceased Surendra. It is contended that the Medical Officer who has performed the post moretem report has specifically stated that the injuries to deceased were simple in nature, therefore, the death of deceased was not possible due to these injuries. He further contended that none of the other witnesses have stated specific role of the present petitioner with respect to causing the injuries which led to death of deceased Surendra Singh. His argument is that petitioner is behind the bars since 28.02.2025 and trial of the case will take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, it is prayed that the petitioner be released on bail. 5. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that, from the testimonies of PW/9 Vikram and PW/13 Madhav, it is evident that the present petitioner inflicted injuries upon the deceased, Surendra Singh. It is further argued that the post-mortem report (Ex.P/6) reveals fractures on the ribs of the deceased, which constitutes incriminating material sufficient to substantiate the allegations levelled against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the trial is at its fag end, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for benefit of bail and bail application deserves to be rejected. 6. On consideration of the rival submissions and the material available on record, especially the testimony of PW/9 Vikram and PW/13 Madhav so also contents of post moretm report Ex.P/6 and looking to the gravity and seriousness of the offence but without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner. [2026:RJ-JP:12442] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1088/2026] 7. Hence, the third bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI /77/26