[2026:RJ-JP:20158] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11870/2025 Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Nanagram, R/o Uparla Bas, Village And Post Office Andhi, Police Station And Tehsil Andhi Via Jamvaramgarh, District Jaipur (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Moolchandani For Respondent(s) : Ms. Laxmi Sharma Ms. Asha Sharma Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 08/05/2026 1. The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Nanagram seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No. 118/2025 dated 20.06.2025 registered at P.S. Andhi, District -Jaipur, for the offence under Sections 190, 115(2), 126(2), 103(1) & 189(4) 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 are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He also submits that the applicant [2026:RJ-JP:20158] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-11870/2025] undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with trial, which will take time. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that co-accused Kaushalya Devi was granted bail by this Hon'ble Court on 11.08.2025 and that the case of the present applicant is identical to that of Kaushalya Devi. He further referred the statement of PW-1, Inder Raj Sharma, and submitted that there was prior animosity between the parties and, therefore, false implication of the present applicant cannot be ruled out on account of such animosity. He also submitted that when PW-1 visited the field, the present applicant was not present there. He further submitted that there was previous animosity between the deceased and the family of Sattar, as Sattar had already closed the pathway between the field of the deceased and Sattar. He also referred the dispute with Sattar and submitted that there was a possibility that the assault might have been committed by some other person. 4. Learned counsel for applicant-accused further referred the investigation and the subsequent statement of PW-1 and submitted that the evidence is sufficient to discredit the prosecution's claim that the present applicant is the main accused, as neither any weapon was recovered, nor was exclusive possession established, nor was any animosity with the deceased proved. He also referred the statement of PW 1 and submitted that it has not been established as to who assaulted the deceased with a knife. Lastly, he submitted that the present applicant is in custody since his arrest and that, till date, only one witness has been examined by the trial court. [2026:RJ-JP:20158] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-11870/2025] 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. 6. Learned counsel for complainant has submitted that present applicant is main accused in the instant case. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, learned counsel for complainant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 8. The statement of PW-1, Inder Raj Sharma, has been recorded by the trial court and this Court has considered the entire cross-examination referred by learned counsel for the applicant. The entire evidence and material brought on record suggest the involvement of the present applicant as the main accused. However, this Court is refraining from expressing any opinion on the merits of the evidence of PW-1, though his statement has been considered by and large with regard to the prosecution story but we are not impressed by the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Accordingly, the application for bail filed under Section 483 of [2026:RJ-JP:20158] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-11870/2025] BNSS preferred by Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Nanagram is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /02