At Present Confined In J.c. Distt. Jail Bundi) State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp v. For

: Dr. Mahesh Sharma Mr. Amit Jindal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP ----Petitioner ----Respondent [2025:RJ-JP:34935] (2 of 8) [CRLMB-2896/2025] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 29/08/2025 Order

1. Instant applications for bail are filed under Section 483 of BNSS by the applicants-accused Vishal S/o Chhitar Lal, Monu S/o Shrikishan, Gurupreet Singh Urf Gopi Urf Manga S/o Jarnel Singh and Deepak S/o Bhawanishankar in FIR No. 400/2024 dated 05.11.2024 registered at P.S. Kotwali District -Bundi, whereby the applicant-accused was charged under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of BNS and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

2. The applicants were arrested and are in judicial custody since their arrest. The Court below has dismissed the bail applications.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioners are innocent persons and they were falsely implicated by police with connivance of complainant party. They further submitted that for incident of 04.11.2024, a type report is registered on 05.11.2024 which indicated that after taking legal advice, report is registered by complainant. They further submitted that police has filed charge-sheet and after framing charge, statement of three witnesses were already examined before the trial court. They further submitted that these petitioners were facing trial for quite long time and disposal of case will take time.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners Vishal, Monu and Deepak submitted that none of these petitioners were named in FIR and as per FIR, Gurpreet has assaulted deceased Manish on [2025:RJ-JP:34935] (3 of 8) [CRLMB-2896/2025] sudden provocation. He further submitted that the complainant PW-3 Rameshwar Meena, an eye witness has registered report and he did not named any of the petitioners in involvement and said act committed in the evening of 04.11.2024. He further submitted that these petitioners were charged with aid of Section 3(5) of BNS and there is no material on record to show that these petitioners had any plan or intention with other accused to assault deceased Manish. He further referred cross-examination of PW-3 and submitted that he is neither an eye-witness nor a chance witness to help prosecution to prove circumstances relating to the crime. He further referred CCTV footage played before the trial court and the circumstances mentioned by the Investigating Officer and submitted that role and involvement of present is not proved from CCTV footage. He further referred evidence of PW-1 Ronak and submitted that he claimed himself as an eye-witness but his cross-examination indicated that none of these petitioners were present at Punjabi Dhaba when quarrel between main accused Gurpreet and deceased took place. He further submitted that PW-1 has not entered into shop of Shiv Flower Decoration, which is place of murder. He referred cross-examination of PW-1 and submitted that role and involvement of petitioners is not proved from evidence of PW-1. He further referred evidence and material on record and submitted that neither there is pre-meditated plan nor meeting of mind of these petitioners, with other accused. He further referred the evidence and submitted that even from [2025:RJ-JP:34935] (4 of 8) [CRLMB-2896/2025] any of evidene, the presence of petitioners is not established and no specific attribution is made by any of the witness. He further referred that the important witness PW-1 and PW-3 were already examined by trial court and involvement of petitioner Vishal, Monu and Deepak is not proved, who are in custody since 06.11.2024.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner Gurpreet Singh has submitted that uncle of deceased has lodged an FIR after legal consultation and getting it typed from third person which indicated that a report is registered by him. He further submitted that in FIR, Gurpreet and Ashu were named but none of them is known to subscriber of FIR and police has not conducted any TIP to ascertain identity of any person involved in the incident. He further referred the evidence collected by police in support of charge-sheet and submitted that police has recorded statement of Nandlal, owner of Shiv Flower Decoration under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and his statement clearly indicated that incident is a result of sudden provocation and he is not an eye-witness. He further referred statements of PW-1 and PW-3 and submitted that PW-3 has denied involvement of Ashu though he was named in FIR. He also referred cross-examination and submitted that present petitioner Gurpreet is also not known to PW-3 and there is no identification by him. He further referred cross-examination of PW-3 and submitted that his denial clearly shows that he retracted his version in FIR. He also referred statement of PW-1 Ronak particularly his cross- examination and submitted that it is doubtful that he was an [2025:RJ-JP:34935] (5 of 8) [CRLMB-2896/2025] eye-witness. He further referred the evidence of PW-3 and submitted that he is neither a star witness nor present at the spot and PW-1 has not deposed against Gurpreet. He further referred that there is one single blow and not on any vital part which shows that there was no intention to kill or murder Manish and only due to sudden provocation, resulted into sudden fight. At last, he submitted that from the entire material on record, the case falls within definition of Section 304 Part II and not under Section 302 IPC and petitioner is in custody, who is facing trial.

6. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. He further submitted that complainant was already informed about filing of current bail applications.

7. Heard learned counsel for the applicants-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. Also considered judgments in case of Lallan Rai and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar AIR 2003 SC 333 submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners Vishal, Monu and Deepak.

8. On the basis of report dated 05.11.2024, lodged by PW_3 Rameshwar about deadly assault upon his nephew Manish by Ashu and Gurpreet which resulted into death of Manish, a report is registred. After investigation, police has recorded statement of witnesses and after collecting PMR report filed charge-sheet against Vishal, Deepak, Monu and Gurpreet. After investigation, role and involvement of Ashu is not found proved. [2025:RJ-JP:34935] (6 of 8) [CRLMB-2896/2025]

9. After framing charge, three witnesses were examined and we have considered statement of all three witnesses including PW-1 Ronak and PW-3 Rameshwar. The accused Gurpreet is in custody since 16.11.2024 and remaining accused were arrested on 06.11.2024. As per criminal antecedents, two cases were registered at P.S. Hindauli against Vishal and there is no criminal antecedent against any of other petitioners.

10. In case of Lallan Rai and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered judgment of Constitution Bench in case of Mohan Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1962 Supp. (3) SCR 848 wherein it was held that to constitute vicarious criminal liability, as prescribed under Section 34 of IPC there has to be common intention of the accused. The petitioners Vishal Monu and Deepak were charged with aid of Section 3(5) of BNS. In FIR lodged by PW-3, petitioners Vishal, Monu and Deepak were not mentioned by subscriber of FIR PW-3. We have considered cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-3 in light of evidence collected by police.

11. At this stage, we do not want to indulge in analysis of these witnesses on merits but having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case available on record, it is apparent that there were four stabbed wounds on body of deceased and same were mentioned in PMR. The fifth injury is abrasion. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Gurpreet has submitted that the cause of death is hemorrhagic shock, [2025:RJ-JP:34935] (7 of 8) [CRLMB-2896/2025] as a result of ante-mortem injury No.2 which is stabbed wound on left thigh.

12. Considering the material on record, the main accused is Gurpreet and attribution is made upon him for assaulting with knife whereas other petitioners Vishal, Monu and Deepak were charged with aid and assistance of Section 3(5) of BNS. The recovery of knife is also effected from Gurpreet and he is facing charge under Section 4/25 of Arms Act.

13. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner Gurpreet is main accused, therefore he is not entitled to be released on bail. Considering the material about other accused Vishal, Monu and Deepak, I am of considered view that these petitioners are entitled to be released on bail.

14. Thus, the instant bail applications filed on behalf of applicant-accused Vishal S/o Chhitar Lal, Monu S/o Shrikishan, and Deepak S/o Bhawanishankar, are hereby allowed and the applicants-accused are ordered to be released on bail with condition that each of the petitioners would furnish a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants-accused shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner. (ii) The applicants-accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the Law. [2025:RJ-JP:34935] (8 of 8) [CRLMB-2896/2025] (iii) The applicants-accused shall attend the hearing of the Trial Court on the date fixed by the Trial court or as and when asked to appear before the Trial Court. (iv) In case of any violation of above conditions, the bail granted to the applicant-accused shall be liable to be canceled.

15. The bail application preferred on behalf of petitioner Gurupreet Singh Urf Gopi Urf Manga S/o Jarnel Singh is hereby dismissed.

16. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court through E-mail. PREETI VALECHA /06-08 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J