Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8298 (RAJ)

MUKESH S/O SHRI MANMOHAN v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/8157/2026 · 2026-06-01

Ravi Chirania

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:22539] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 8157/2026 Mukesh S/o Shri Manmohan, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Jhareda, Police Station Sadar Hindon, District Karauli, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined At Central Jail, Karauli). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madhav Mitra, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Girraj P. Sharma, Ms. Sneha Gulati and Ms. Nikita Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order 1. Date of conclusion of arguments 25.05.2026 2. Date on which the order was reserved 25.05.2026 3. Whether the full order or only operative part is pronounced Full 4. Date of pronouncement 01.06.2026 1. This instant second bail application has been filed by the petitioner Mukesh S/o Shri Manmohan, aged about 25 years, under Section 483 of BNSS who was arrested by the police in connection with FIR No. 279/2025 dated 03.07.2025 registered at Police Station Hindon Sadar, District Karauli for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 351(2) and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 and Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 (amended in 2015). The first bail application was rejected by this Court by order dated 19.03.2026. After rejection of the first bail [2026:RJ-JP:22539] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-8157/2026] application, the petitioner filed the bail application before the learned Trial Court which came to be rejected vide order dated 05.05.2026. 2. Mr. Madhav Mitra, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Giriraj P. Sharma, appearing for the petitioner submitted that in the present case, FIR was lodged on 03.07.2025 and police has filed the chargesheet on 19.10.2025. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Trial Court has recorded the statements of material witnesses namely PW-1 Anoop Singh, PW-2 Laxmi, PW-3 Sachin and PW-4 Piyush. It was further contended that two eye- witnesses namely Ravi Gurjar and Ravindra @ Popla failed to make specific allegations against the petitioner herein which shows that he was not involved in the alleged incident and has been falsely implicated by allegedly showing his presence at the time of incident. 3. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the statements of all the above material witnesses, as recorded by the learned Trial Court, failed to show the involvement of the petitioner herein. The other co-accused persons namely Tapendra @ Chomu and Omhari have already been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court while allowing their S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.362/2026 vide order dated 15.01.2026 and S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15522/2025 vide order dated 18.12.2025 respectively. In view of the above, learned Senior Counsel prayed that by maintaining parity, considering the long incarceration and the evidence of witnesses as recorded by the learned Trial Court, [2026:RJ-JP:22539] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-8157/2026] petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application and submitted that in the present case, the deceased was severely beaten up by the persons named in the FIR and on account of grave internal injuries as suffered during the beatings, he died on the spot. He further submitted that at the beginning of the incident, two persons namely Ravi Gurjar and Ravindra @ Popla, who were present along with the deceased and were also eye-witnesses of the incident for a certain period, named the petitioner herein. However, when they could not handle the pressure of 5-6 persons, as were present at the time of the incident, they ran away from the place of the incident. He also submitted that the conclusion as recorded in the charge-sheet as well as the statements of the two eye-witnesses Ravi Gurjar and Ravindra @ Popla as recorded under Section 183 BNSS, are sufficient enough to show that deceased was alone after the above two persons ran away, died due to the severe internal injuries as suffered by him being caused by the petitioner herein and the other persons as specifically named. He further submitted that in view of the above facts, the present petitioner does not deserves to be enlarged on bail. 5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. This Court while dismissing the first bail application by order dated 19.03.2026 noted that the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court have enlarged the other two co-accused namely Tapendra @ Chomu and Omhari and it is after considering the orders as [2026:RJ-JP:22539] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-8157/2026] passed in their case, the first bail application of the present petitioner was dismissed. This Court considered the conclusion as recorded by the police in the chargesheet and also noted the opinion of the Medical Board which as specifically mentioned in the chargesheet that deceased died 'due to sun copo-cause internal haemorrhage by injury in the abdomen. Injury implicated up on body are sufficient to cause of death.' 7. This Court further noted that two persons, namely Ravi Gurjar and Ravindra @ Popla, who were eye witnesses for a certain part of the incident, specifically named the present petitioner along with the other persons, however, those two persons also ran away from the spot when they were unable to face 5-6 persons as present and named in the case. After they left the place of incident, it was the deceased all alone, who was severely beaten up and suffered serious internal injuries, as opined by the medical board which were sufficient enough to cause death. 8. After considering the statements of the witnesses as recorded by learned Trial Court, the conclusion as recorded in the chargesheet, statements of eyewitnesses namely Ravi Gurjar and Ravindra @ Popla recorded under Section 183 BNSS and other material as available on record, this Court finds no reason to allow the present bail application. 9. In view of the above, this second bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner is dismissed. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J 38/RAHUL KUMAR