The court ruled that the severity of the charges and substantial evidence against the accused justified the denial of bail.

Order :

1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 29/2024 registered at Police Station Pagariya, District Jhalawar for the offence(s) under Sections 302, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that case under Section 302 IPC is not made out against the petitioner, even if it is presumed that petitioner has used fire arm then also deceased did not receive any fire arm injury from the petitioner’s revolver. The direct allegation of causing death of the deceased is against the other co-accused Nain Singh. The material eye-witness PW-1 Prahlad Singh, who is the complainant has already been examined. The accused petitioner is in custody since 11.03.2024 and the trial of the case will take considerable time. Prosecution has furnished a long list of 42 prosecution witnesses, hence considering the role of the petitioner and the long incarceration and probability of unlikelihood of conclusion of trial within reasonable time, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application and contended that in the FIR it is clearly stated that petitioner alongwith the other co-accused came together and thereafter opened fire at deceased Nain Singh and Prahlad. It is also contended that presence of petitioner alongwith the other co-accused was captured in video footage. The material eye-witnesses Ishwar Singh, Vinod Singh and Sham Singh in their statement rendered under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. have clearly stated that the accused- petitioner alongwith the other co-accused after abusing deceased Bhagwan Singh, opened fire at him, resulting into his death. It is also stated in the statements that petitioner also opened fire at Prahlad Singh and at the instance of petitioner recovery of fire arm was effected. At this juncture, it cannot be said that the accused- petitioner was not having any common intention to cause death of the deceased. Therefore, considering the gravity of the offence, bail application of accused-petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

4. Heard and perused the material available on the record.

5. It is not desirable to express anything upon the merits of the case. The material eye-witness Prahlad Singh has deposed against the petitioner and specifically stated that the petitioner opened fire on him, other witnesses in their statements rendered under Section 164 Cr.P.C. have deposed against the petitioner and some other witnesses are yet to be examined. During investigation petitioner’s presence with the revolver and his specific act was found and at the instance of the accused- petitioner fire arm was recovered.

6. Therefore, considering the allegations levelled against the petitioner, this court is not inclined to enlarge the accused petitioner on bail. Accordingly, instant bail application is hereby dismissed.