Bail granted as allegations against the accused-petitioner did not substantiate a denial of bail, emphasizing the lack of murderous intent.

ORDER :

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J.)

1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.90/2024 registered at Police Station SOP, District Tonk, for the offence(s) under Sections 110, 304(2) and 3(5) of BNS.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated for the offences under Sections 3(5), 110, 304(2), 140(2), 309(6), 115(2) and 103(1) of BNS. He further submits that the incident occurred on 06.07.2024 and the deceased in his Parcha Bayan has stated that the other co-accused hit him at abdomen with his leg. The deceased died on 21.10.2024 and in between the deceased remained admitted for several times in the hospital. It is clearly stated in the post-mortem report that the deceased remained admitted in the hospital from 08.07.2024 to 19.07.2024, 25.07.2024 to 12.08.2024, 23.08.2024 to 01.10.2024 and lastly from 07.10.2024 to 21.10.2024. It is also contended that the injuries caused to the deceased was not with the intention to kill and there was no murderous intention on the part of the accused- petitioner. It is further contended that the injuries sustained to injured was attributed to the other co-accused. It it also contended that the offence under Section 103(1) is not made out against the accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner is in custody since 02.10.2024 and trial of the case will take considerable time, therefore, the bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.

4. Heard and perused the material available on record.

5. The charge-sheet has already been produced against the accused-petitioner before the concerned Court. It is alleged against the accused-petitioner that he pushed the deceased and the other co-accused hit the deceased at his abdomen. Thereafter, the deceased remained hospitalized for different time period, and the post mortem report of the deceased shows that due to perforation in the peritoneum cavity the deceased died. However, the medical opinion was kept reserved in want of histopathology report, and the final opinion has not been given, be that as it may, the allegation against the accused-petitioner is of only pushing the deceased and not hitting the deceased, and in the Parcha Bayan also, the deceased has clearly stated that the accused-petitioner pushed him, therefore, considering the above facts, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

6. Accordingly, this bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Aatmaram S/o Bhagchand in connection with FIR No.90/2024 registered at Police Station SOP, District Tonk, shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.