[2026:RJ-JP:20322] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7367/2026 Natthi S/o Bhabhuti, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Bodoli Dahar, Police Station Pahari, District Deeg (Rajasthan) (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail Deeg). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7278/2026 Jawahar S/o Parsadi, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village Bodolideher, Police Station Pahari, District Deeg. (At Present Accused-Petitioner Confined In District Jail Dausa) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7368/2026 Kapil Dev S/o Rajveer, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Bodolidahar, Police Station Pahadi, District Deeg. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail Deeg). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Gupta Senior Adv. with Mr. Gorang Agarwal Mr. Saurabh Pratap Singh Chouhan Mr. Rahul Sinsinwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP Mr. Karan Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order [2026:RJ-JP:20322] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-7367/2026] 13/05/2026 1. The petitioners have filed these bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.276/2025 registered at Police Station Pahari, District Deeg for offence under Sections 191(2), 190, 115(2), 126(2), 103(1), 351(2), 352 and 125 of BNS-2023. 2. Since all these bail applications arise out of common FIR, hence, they are being decided by this common order. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in these cases. He further submits that no specific role in causing the death of the deceased Chandan Singh has been attributed to the present petitioners. The injured Pradeep, in his statements recorded during investigation, has not stated the name of any of the petitioners. Even the CCTV footage collected during the investigation does not implicate any of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the injury inflicted upon injured Pradeep is simple in nature. The petitioners have been involved in the matter only on the basis of the statement of a single witness, namely Sohan Singh, recorded during the investigation. The petitioner Natthi is in custody since 16.12.2025, petitioners Kapil and Jawahar since 07.11.2025. Though against petitioner Jawahar, four criminal antecedents are there, however he is already on bail in those cases. Charge-sheet has already been filed. The trial of the case will take considerable time, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the [2026:RJ-JP:20322] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-7367/2026] petitioners in further custody. Hence, the bail application of the petitioners may be allowed. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioners are specifically named in the FIR. All the petitioners in furtherance of their common criminal intention reached the house of Nanak armed with firearms and other deadly weapons and indiscriminately opened fire. As a consequence of the gunshot injuries, the complainant’s brother Chandan Singh succumbed to his injuries and his nephew Pradeep also sustained injuries. It is further submitted that all the petitioners actively participated in the commission of the offence and their involvement is specifically reflected from the statement of the complainant Sohan Singh and eye-witness Nanak who categorically named the petitioners and attributed specific roles to them. The physical presence of the petitioners at the place of occurrence also established from the material collected during investigation. It is further argued that mere filing of the charge- sheet cannot by itself constitute a ground to enlarge the petitioners on bail particularly when grave and heinous offences are prima facie made out. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of bail. 6. On consideration of the rival submissions and the material available on record, especially the contents of FIR, the statements of complainant- Sohan Singh and eye-witness Nanak recorded during the course of investigation coupled with the CCTV footage, but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the [2026:RJ-JP:20322] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-7367/2026] case, I am not inclined to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioners. 7. Accordingly, all the bail applications are hereby dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J bmg/92-94