The court granted bail to accused-applicants due to lack of specific allegations against them and the precedent of co-accused being granted bail, emphasizing the lengthy investigation process.

Headnote:(A) B.N.S.S., 2023 - Sections 483, 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 111(2)(a), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 308(4), 326(f), 61(2)(a) - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 3/25 - Bail applications filed by accused-applicants in FIR No.178/2024 - Accused-applicants not named in FIR and co-accused granted bail - Seriousness of offences considered - Investigation expected to take long time. (Paras 2, 3, 6, 9)

(B) Bail - Grant of bail - Court considers period of custody, lack of specific allegations against applicants, and that co-accused have been granted bail - No opinion on merits of the case expressed. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The bail applications were filed by accused-applicants who were not named in the FIR and had been arrested in connection with serious offences. Co-accused had been granted bail by the court.

Findings of Court:
The court allowed the bail applications, emphasizing the lack of specific allegations against the applicants and the lengthy investigation process.

Issues: The main issues were the lack of specific allegations against the accused-applicants and the precedent of co-accused being granted bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of specific allegations and the lengthy investigation warranted the granting of bail to the accused-applicants.

Result: Bail applications allowed.

ORDER :

1. As these bail applications have been filed pertaining to the same FIR, they are being heard and decided by the instant common order.

2. These bail applications have been filed by the accused-applicants under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S, 2023 in the matter arising out of FIR No.178/2024, registered at Police Station Roopangarh, District Ajmer for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 111(2)(a), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 308(4), 326(f) and 61(2)(a) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1959) [later on for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 189(4) and 324(4) of B.N.S., 2023].

3. Learned counsel for the accused-applicants submits that the accused-applicants have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the accused-applicants also submits that the accused-applicants have not been named in the FIR. Learned counsel further submits that the co-accused persons namely Nandram Jajunda, Pradhan Gurjar, Jeetram @ Kailash Jakhar and Rajveer Singh @ Fouji have been granted benefit of bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.03.2025 (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3452/2025 and other connected matters).

4. Learned counsel argues that the other co-accused persons namely Nandlal @ Nanda, Nahar Singh @ Naharu, Pukhraj and Balbharam have been granted benefit of bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.02.2025 (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2897/2025 and other connected matters). Learned counsel further argues that the co-accused persons namely Naresh, Pappu, Hanuman, Ramdayal and Ramjilal have been granted benefit of bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.02.2025 (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2473/2025 and other connected matters). Learned counsel also argues that the other co-accused persons namely Vijendra @ Bholu, Vikas, Deependra and Hemraj @ Deepu have been granted benefit of bail by learned trial Court vide order dated 22.01.2025.

5. Learned counsel for the accused-applicants argues that the accused-applicant-Ranglal was arrested on 17.03.2025 and the accused-applicants namely Omprakash and Ramesh were arrested on 01.04.2025 and since then, all these accused-applicants are behind the bars. Learned counsel also argues that in these cases, the investigation will take long time to conclude. Learned counsel further argues that there is no specific allegation in the FIR against the present accused-applicants, therefore, both the accused-applicants may be granted benefit of bail.

6. Learned Government Advocate assisted by learned Deputy Government Advocate vehemently oppose these bail applications and submit that looking to the seriousness of the offences committed by the accused-applicants and considering the fact that five other cases have been registered against the accused-applicant-Ranglal, the accused-applicants should not be enlarged on bail.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.

8. Admittedly, as per the prosecution case, the main allegation of causing death is on the accused-Dinesh Choudhary and no specific allegation has been levelled to the accused-applicants. The accused-applicants have not been named in the impugned FIR. All the other co-accused persons have been granted benefit of bail.

9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the period of custody of the accused-applicants; the fact that the other co-accused have been granted benefit of bail by the Coordinate Bench of this Court as well as by learned trial Court itself and also considering the fact that the investigation and trial will take long time to conclude, but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court deems it proper to allow these bail applications filed by the applicants.

10. Consequently, these bail applications filed under Section 483 of the B.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document