The State of Rajasthan, through PP v. Connected

: Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar Mr. Kapil Gupta Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Mr. Sandeep Kumpar Mr. Bhupesh Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Judgment / Order 15/09/2025

1. These are second bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS, filed on behalf of the petitioners, who are in custody in connection with FIR No.88/2024 registered at Police Station Rahuwas, District Dausa (Raj.) for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 189(2), 115(2), 123, 127(2), 3(5) and 307 of [2025:RJ-JP:37899] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-11573/2025] BNS. After completion of investigation, challan has been filed in the court concerned and presently, the trial is at prosecution evidence.

2. Vide order dated 06.08.2025, the first bail application (No.15096/2024) filed on behalf of both the petitioners was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording testimony of Dr. Nirmal Meena and Dr. R.K. Meena. Now both these witnesses have been examined at trial and hence, these second bail applications.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. They submit that independent prosecution witnesses namely PW.1 Prahlad Narayan Sharma, PW.2 Jitendra, PW.3 Laxminarayan and PW.4 Bharatlal have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. It is contended that as per prosecution case, on 26.07.2024 at about 11:40 PM, an information was received to the police that a boy had entered into a house at Jagner and he had been detained by the villagers. On receiving such information, police party reached at the place of incident and found that one person was lying in injured condition on a cot. The police party met with a person there who disclosed his name as Pappu Meena who claimed himself as the owner of the house. The injured disclosed his name as Lalluprasad Meena. The injured was taken to CHC, Rahuwas for treatment where he was medically examined by Dr. Nirmal Kumar. It is argued that as per the [2025:RJ-JP:37899] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-11573/2025] testimony of PW.9 Dr. Nimral Kumar, there were four injuries noticed on the person of the deceased, out of which, injury no.1, 2 and 3 were simple in nature whereas injury no.4, on the skull of the injured was caused by a blunt weapon and in order to know its nature, CT scan was advised. As per his testimony, the injuries nos.2,3 and 4 were superficial. In his cross-examination, he admitted that earlier, in the MLC, injury no.4 was written as simple in nature but later on, it was striked off. He clearly stated that at the time of his medical examination, the injured was conscious and giving replies to the queries. Learned counsel submit that surprisingly, on the next day, the injured died and postmortem was conducted at District Hospital, Dausa. As per the postmortem report, the primary cause of death coma brought about as a result of ante-mortem head injury which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. As per the testimony of PW.10 Dr. R.K. Meena, the postmortem was conducted on 27.07.2024 at 5:45 PM and all the injuries were inflicted 9-10 hours prior to postmortem. They thus, contend that the circumstances appearing in the present case give rise to a possibility that the injured was beaten up by the police due to which, he died. The petitioners are in custody since 28.07.2024 and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail applications. He submits that it seems that prosecution witnesses have been won over by the accused petitioners. He argues that man may lie but [2025:RJ-JP:37899] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-11573/2025] circumstances do not. He thus, craves dismissal of the applications.

6. I have considered the contentions. Looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case; and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor as also the fact that aforementioned independent witnesses PW.1 Prahlad Narayan Sharma, PW.2 Jitendra, PW.3 Laxminarayan and PW.4 Bharatlal have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile; as per the testimony of PW.9 Nirmal Kumar, four injuries were noticed by him on the person of the injured and all of them were superficial in nature and at the time his medical examination, he was conscious and responding to the queries; the petitioners are in custody for the last fourteen months and trial will take time in its conclusion but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail applications.

7. These second bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners – Narsi @ Narendra S/o Shri Rameshwar and Ramesh Chand S/o Shri Hazarilal, arrested in connection with FIR No.88/2024 PS Rahuwas shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all [2025:RJ-JP:37899] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-11573/2025] subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

8. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. GAUTAM JAIN /733 (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J