The court granted bail based on the principle of parity, finding no distinguishable role of the petitioner compared to a co-accused already released on bail.

Order :

1. This application for bail under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. (old Section 439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.96/2024 registered at Police Station Dangiawas, District Jodhpur, for offence under Section 103(1) of BNS.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co- accused person namely Chaganaram (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.12681/2024) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 14.11.2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case of present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the above named co-accused person who has already been enlarged on bail.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the case of the petitioner is not worse than that of the co-accused- Chaganaram, therefore, the petitioner also deserve to be enlarged on bail. He submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 10.08.2024; investigation has already been completed against the present petitioner and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time and the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner influencing the material prosecution witnesses or fleeing away from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail.

5. The order dated 14.11.2024 passed by this Court is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“1. This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (483 BNSS) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.96/2024, registered at Police Station Dangiyawas, District Jodhpur, for offence under Section 103(1) of BNS.

2. As per the prosecution, on 08.08.2024 at around 07:00 P.M., in the village courtyard of village Palasani Angor, a fight broke out between the deceased- Jafar Shah and the petitioner and co- accused persons. In the aforesaid incident, Jafar Shah got severely injured and was taken to Sona Hospital, Banar Road, Jodhpur. During the course of treatment, Jafar Shah passed away.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR. Drawing attention of the Court towards the challan papers, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had no previous animosity with the deceased. Further, Drawing attention of the Court towards the post- mortem report of the deceased- Jafar Shah as well as the statements of eye witness- Om Prakash recorded under Section 180 BNSS, learned counsel submitted that the cause of death in the opinion of the medical jurists who conducted the post-mortem upon the deceased- Jafar Shah was shock as a result of Right Ventricle (cardiac) Rupture due to cumulative effect of trauma and previous cardiac pathology. Learned counsel further submitted that the specific allegation of hitting punches upon the chest of the deceased- Jafar Shah is against the co- accused person namely Shrawan Ram due to which he fell down and when the present petitioner arrived at the scene, the deceased Jafar Shah had already became unconscious. No specific allegation of inflicting chest injuries has been levelled against the present petitioner.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that even the blunt weapon (lathi) allegedly recovered at the instance of the petitioner does not contain any blood stains. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; no recovery is due to be made from him; challan against him has already been filed; and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-pe