The court determined the necessity for bail based on the absence of direct allegations against certain petitioners, while evidence of serious involvement warranted denial for another.

ORDER :

RAVI CHIRANIA, J.

[1]- S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9654/2025 (Mukesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan) :

1. The instant bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed by accused-applicant Mukesh Kumar S/o. Subhash Chandra in connection with FIR No.211/2024 registered at P.S. Gogamedi, District Hanumangarh for offence under Sections 103 (1), 115(2), 126(2), 191(2), 190, 331(8), 191(3), 109(1), 118(2), 127(2) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 4 /25 of Arms Act, against the rejection order dated 06.8.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.238/2025 (Sessions Case No.03/2025, State Vs. Deepak & Anr.), whereby the bail application filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested by the police in connection with the FIR impugned on 19.11.2024. The Investigating Officer conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet on 15.12.2024 and statements of material witnesses have also been recorded by the trial court. He submitted that the FIR impugned shows that one Bishan Singh S/o. Bhanwar Singh lodged a named FIR against certain persons alleging that they came armed with deadly weapons and by causing severe injuries to the deceased-Manoj killed him with pre-mediated mind. On account of that the impugned FIR was registered on 16.9.2024.

3. Counsel submits that the Investigating Officer recorded detailed conclusion of incident that happened on 16.9.2024 between the deceased, main accused persons and also with certain persons, though, not named in the FIR but were present on the spot without any object or pre-mediated mind and further there was no overt act assigned to the present petitioner.

4. By referring to the detailed conclusion as recorded by the Investigating Officer, counsel specifically submitted that, in respect of the bail application of accused Mukesh Kumar, the entire allegations are against one Vijendra @ Kidiya and Jaideep JD, who were armed with Knife and caused injury to the deceased.

5. He further submitted that, as such, their happens to be no dispute from the conclusion of charge-sheet, however, a petty incident occurred regarding sharing/using of cot by the deceased and accused in the Gogamedi mela, a local festival, which led to the alleged incident, in which, the deceased suffered several serious injuries. The complete conclusion is against accused-Jaideep JD and Vijendra @ Kidiya and there are no allegations as such against the present petitioner.

6. Counsel submitted that the deceased died on account of stab wounds, which have not been assigned to the present petitioner. He further submitted that after completing the investigation and filing charge-sheet, the trial court has recorded the statements of material witnesses, namely, PW-1 Jagar Singh, PW-3 Jaideep, PW-4 Dinesh Kumar, PW-5 Ajay Dev and PW-6 Deepak Kumar, who have not supported the story of prosecution and denied the version of complainant as reported vide the impugned FIR and consequently they were declared hostile.

7. Counsel submitted that a perusal of statements would show that none of these witnesses stated to have seen the alleged incident and none of them named the present petitioner. On account of the fact, these important and material witnesses have not named the present petitioner and also that they have been declared hostile the complete case of the prosecution itself looses its sanctity and declares the case false and baseless against the present petitioner.

8. In view of the statement of material witnesses as submitted above, counsel for the petitioner prayed that the petitioner Mukesh Kumar be enlarged on bail.

9. Learned Public Prosecutor strongly