[2026:RJ-JP:24703] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5791/2026 URN: CRLMB / 10357U / 2026 Ajeet Singh Ranwa @ Baba S/o Sh. Govind Singh, R/o Aneseriya Road, Dholiya, Police Station Jaswantgarh, District Nagaur. (At Present Confined At Central Jail, Udaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Goswami For Respondent(s) For Complainant : : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP Mr. Satya Pal Poshwal Ms. Abhilasha Choudhary HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 03/07/2026 1. The petitioner has preferred the present bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) in connection with FIR No. 204/2022 registered at Police Station Bagad, District Jhunjhunu, for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor, as well as learned counsel for the complainant. The material available on record has also been perused. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that no specific role has been attributed to the present petitioner. [2026:RJ-JP:24703] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5791/2026] It is further submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons Imran @ Mani, Nitesh Kumar @ Bhagat Singh, Sunil Kumar, Krishna Kumar, Virendra @ Veeru, Amit Kumar have been granted bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court Vishwabandhu @ Sonu and Sanjay was granted bail by the trial Court. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 29.06.2023. The charge-sheet has already been filed and, out of 64 prosecution witnesses, only 12 witnesses have been examined so far. It is submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further custody and, on the ground of parity, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that Coordinate Bench of this Court has allowed the bail applications of the above petitioners on the ground that the name of the petitioners were not mentioned in the FIR and they were found as a conspirator only. However, the case of the present petitioner stands on a different footing because the petitioner is specifically named in the FIR. Further, PW-1 Sanjeev Kumar, who is the eye-witness, has specifically named the petitioner in his examination-in-chief and has categorically stated that the petitioner participated in the assault upon the deceased, Rakesh. Therefore, being one of the principal assailants, the petitioner cannot claim parity with the co- accused who have already been enlarged on bail and is not entitled to the benefit of bail. [2026:RJ-JP:24703] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5791/2026] 5. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material available on record. 6. Having regard to the rival submissions and the material available on record, particularly the fact that the petitioner's name finds specific mention in the FIR and that PW-1 Sanjeev Kumar, in his examination-in-chief, has specifically attributed the role of assaulting the deceased Rakesh to the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot claim parity with those co-accused who have already been granted bail. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the present bail application stands dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J 18/Arun