[2026:RJ-JD:6972]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12267/2025 Mukesh S/o Shri Chandu Ram Alias Chandra Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Bhilo Ki Basti, Meeno Ki Dhani, Cherai, P.S. Osiya, District Jodhpur Presently R/o Nayapura, Chokha, P.S. Rajeev Gandhi Nagar, District Jodhpur.

(Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Jodhpur)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10234/2025 Vikram Prajapat S/o Shri Pappa Ram, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Near Mahesh School Nayapura Chokha P.S. Rajeev Gandhi Nagar Jodhpur Raj.

(Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Jodhpur)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12268/2025 Hansraj S/o Shri Chandu Ram Alias Chandra Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Bhilo Ki Basti, Meeno Ki Dhani, Cherai, P.s.osiya, District Jodhpur Presently R/o Nayapura, Chokha, P.s.rajeev Gandhi Nagar, District Jodhpur. (Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Jodhpur)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naresh Bishnoi for Mr. Mohan Lal Bishnoi Mr. Himmat Jagga For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prem Singh Panwar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Order

09/02/2026

1. The present bail applications have been filed by the accused- applicants under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S, 2023 against the orders dated 24.09.2025, 26.05.2025 and 25.09.2025 respectively passed by the concerned learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jodhpur Metro in connection with FIR No.108/2025, registered at Police Station Soorsagar, District Jodhpur Metro for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 103(1), 118(1), 189(2) and 191(2)(3)/190 of the BNS and 4/25 of the Arms Act, by which the bail applications of the accused-applicants under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S, 2023 have been dismissed.

2. Mr. Naresh Bishnoi and Mr. Himmat Jagga, learned counsel for the accused-applicants, submit that as per the FIR, incident occurred on 17.04.2025, the accused and all the three applicants as well as co-accused Nandu @ Piyush Meghwal and Shrawan Bheel are named as assailants, one Vikram @ Dholaram died in the incident. Learned counsel argue that the allegation of causing the fatal injury to Vikram @ Dholaram resulting into his death is specifically against co-accused Nandu, who stabbed the deceased in the chest, and except this, no other injury was found on the body of the deceased. As per the post-mortem report, Arjun and Suraj also sustained injuries in the incident, caused by both blunt and sharp weapons. Learned counsel further submit that none of the present accused-applicants is alleged to have been armed with a sharp weapon; whereas only co-accused Nandu was carrying a knife. It is alleged that co-accused Nandu caused the fatal injury to Vikram @ Dholaram and simple injuries by a sharp weapon to Arjun and Suraj. It is submitted that the accused-applicants had no knowledge that during the altercation, Nandu would kill Vikram @ Dholaram. No weapon has been recovered from the present applicants. Learned counsels also argue that the accused- applicants were arrested on 22.04.2025 and 25.04.2025 respectively and since then, they are behind the bars. Learned counsel further contends that co-accused Ravi and Shaitan Singh have already been enlarged on bail, and the role attributed to the present applicants is not different from that of Ravi and Shaitan Singh; charge-sheet has been filed. Learned counsels pray that trial will take long time to conclude, therefore, the accused-

applicants be enlarged on bail.

3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail applications and submits that in the CCTV footage, the accused-applicants are seen present at the spot and causing injuries to the deceased as well as to Arjun and Suraj. The statements of the eyewitnesses are yet to be recorded during trial; the