##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:5530]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15119/2024

Bheru Lal S/o Shri Kalu, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Kansaya

Khurd, P.S. Kapasan, Dist Chittorgarh. (Presently Lodged At Dist

Jail Chuittorgarh)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. O.P. Sanghwa

Mr. Bheru Lal Jat

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

30/01/2026

1. This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been

filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with

F.I.R. No.316/2022, registered at Police Station Kapasan, District

Chittorgarh for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 336 and

302/34 of the IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was

contended that, as per the prosecution story, the complainant

Jagdish lodged an FIR at Police Station Kapasan stating, inter alia,

that his sister Laxmi had solemnized a nata marriage with one

Kailash, who was already engaged to Seema, daughter of

Bherulal. Learned counsel submitted that the family members of

Seema were aggrieved by the nata marriage of Laxmi with Kailash

and, therefore, harboured enmity towards Laxmi’s family

(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 04:46:07 PM)

(Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 07:39:01 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5530] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-15119/2024]

members. As per the prosecution, on the date of the alleged

incident, Bherulal (father of Seema), Ramesh, Madan and 4–5

other persons, in a pre-planned manner, reached the house of

Laxmi’s parents and started beating her father and other family

members with blunt weapons. It is alleged that the petitioner

Bherulal inflicted injuries upon Chogalal, father of Laxmi, with an

iron rod on his chest, as a result of which he died on the spot.

3. Drawing the attention of the Court to the statements

recorded before the trial court, learned counsel submitted that the

complainant and eye-witness Jagdish (PW-6), in his deposition,

stated that the injury with the iron rod was inflicted upon the

deceased Chogalal by co-accused Rameshwar and not by the

present petitioner, contrary to what was alleged in the FIR.

Learned counsel further submitted that another eye-witness,

Heeralal (PW-4), has also not named the petitioner as the

assailant who caused the fatal injury to the deceased. It was

further contended that although Prakash (PW-1), in his

examination-in-chief, stated that a blunt weapon injury was

inflicted on the chest of the deceased by the present petitioner,

however, in his cross-examination, he admitted that at the time of

the incident he was inside the house and came to the spot later,

by which time more than 100 persons had gathered there. He

further admitted that he could not state as to which person caused

injuries to the injured persons and by which weapon.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that though, as per the

prosecution, the iron rod was recovered at the instance of the

present petitioner, the recovery witnesses, namely Satyanarayan

(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 04:46:07 PM)

(Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 07:39:01 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5530] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-15119/2024]

(PW-2) and Banshilal (PW-3), have not supported the prosecution

case in their statements before the court and have turned hostile.

It was contended that the petitioner has been arrayed as an

accused solely on the basis of conjectures and surmises and that

there are material and consistent contradictions in the statements

of the eye-witnesses of the alleged incident.

5. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has

been in judicial custody since 29.09.2022; the statements of all

material prosecution witnesses have already been recorded before

the competent criminal court; therefore, there is no apprehension

of the petitioner influencing the witnesses. It was further

submitted that the trial is likely to take a considerable period of

time, and hence, the petitioner deserves to