Bail is warranted for bailable offenses when prior serious allegations are cleared, and investigations are complete, focusing on the nature of involvement rather than just the charges.

ORDER :

RAVI CHIRANIA, J.

[1]- S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.9497/2025 (Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan) :

1. The instant bail application under Section 43 B.N.S.S. has been filed by accused-applicant Kuldeep Singh S/o. Parwat Singh, in connection with FIR No.232/2025 registered at P.S. Kotwali Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh for the offence under Sections 103 (1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 61(2)¼d½, 326 ¼,Q½ 324(5), 115(2), 249d, 111 (2)(1), 111(5), 238 BNS and Section 3 /25, 4/25 Arms Act, against the bail rejection order dated 01.7.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.155/2025, whereby the bail application filed by the accused-petitioner was rejected.

2. Learned counsel Mr. Shreedhar Purohit submitted that the police after conducting investigation has filed charge-sheet in the matter, thus, prayed that the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner may kindly be heard as no investigation is not pending qua the petitioner.

3. The brief facts as has come out from the arguments advanced by learned counsel Mr. Shreedhar Purohit is that complainant Om Prakash Sharma lodged the impugned FIR on 01.6.2025 stating therein that he alongwith Gajendra Singh Chouhan and Shelendra Singh Shekhawat went to a hotel for taking meals, where their common friend Ajay Raj Singh was present. After having meals, Ajay Raj Singh was attacked by 15-20 persons who were armed with pistol, swords and iron rods etc., and they came with the intention to kill Ajay Raj Singh. After causing injuries with weapons to Ajay Raj Singh, they fled away. In the said incident, on account of the injuries suffered Ajay Raj Singh died.

4. Counsel further submitted that the alleged incident occurred on account of some old enmity.

5. Counsel submitted that the allegation against petitioner on the basis of conclusion as drawn in the charge-sheet filed by the police are in respect of offence under Section 249 (a) & 111(5) BNS , 2023. He further submitted that there are no allegation against the petitioner of carrying any firearm. Further the petitioner did not cause any injury to the deceased nor to any person, who were stated to be present on the spot.

6. Counsel further submitted that it is an admitted fact that the present applicant was not present at the spot and this fact cannot be disputed on the basis of charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer.

7. Counsel fairly submitted that the allegation against him is of harboring the alleged offence committed by the main accused.

8. He further submitted that learned trial court in the bail rejection order dated 01.7.2025 in para-4 mentioned about ten cases, which were filed against him. He submitted that the trial court was not informed about correct facts by learned Public Prosecutor, as no criminal case is pending against him and he has been acquitted in all the cases. In support of this argument, he referred to document dated 17.7.2025 written by the SHO., P.S. Chanderia to Addl. SP, District Chittorgarh wherein it has been mentioned in a tabular form that the petitioner was acquitted in all the cases, however, this fact was not correctly recorded in the impugned bail rejection order. On the basis of the above fact, learned counsel tried to present that there are no pending criminal cases against the petitioner and all the cases which were filed against him were found to be false and, therefore, trial court acquitted him after detailed trial in respect of those offences.

8.1 He further submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 11.6.2025 and no recovery is required to be made from him after completion of investigation and filing of charge-sheet.

9. In opposition, learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Narendra Gehlot st