Bail may be granted in heinous crime cases if the statements of injured witnesses do not attribute a specific role or use of weapons to the accused, suggesting a lack of prima facie evidence for their active participation in the assault.

Order

1. This application for bail has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of BNSS (old Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) in connection with FIR No.78/2025 dated 27.06.2025, Police Station Bhaleri, District Churu for the offences under Sections 103 , 110, 115(2), 117(2), 126(2) and 191(3) of BNS.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and false allegations have been levelled upon the petitioner. One lathi has been alleged to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner, however, recovery of lathi itself could not be a ground sufficient in itself to connect the present petitioner with the alleged crime.

2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR was lodged by Manoharlal on 27.06.2025, who is not only the informant but also an injured witness. The said Manoharlal, in the FIR so also in his statement recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, has not assigned any specific role to the present petitioner for inflicting any injury to Rohitash (deceased) as well as the complainant himself.

2.2 He also submitted that Hariram, Naresh and Sunil also sustained injuries being present at the time of incident as alleged in the FIR. However, in the statement recorded under Section 180 BNSS, but none of these three injured witnesses assigned any role to the present petitioner in inflicting any injury to the deceased Rohitash, rather, the allegation of inflicting injuries was levelled against Balveer, Dharmaram and Mangilal. Further, the postmortem report of the deceased Rohitash indicated three injuries, sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and the same are not attributable to the petitioner.

2.3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 27.06.2025 and the trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant, while opposing the bail application, submitted that the petitioner is in custody on account of committing heinous crime under Section 103 (1) of BNS. It is also submitted that the deceased Rohitash along with others including the complainant Manoharlal were brutally attacked in a form of a mob and, therefore, the role of the petitioner is not different from the other persons, namely, Balveer, Dharma Ram and Mangilal, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

4. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of this case and after perusing the charge-sheet, so also considering the statements of injured witnesses, namely, Manoharlal, Hariram, Naresh and Sunil recorded under Section 180 of BNSS, this Court prima-facie finds that none of the injured witnesses have alleged that the petitioner was carrying any weapon, which was used to inflict injury to deceased Rohitash nor any injured witnesses have stated that the petitioner was having lathi with him at the time when this incident took place, in the considered opinion of this Court, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the applicant deserves to be accepted.

5. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that petitioner-Anil Nayak S/o Shri Pemaram shall be released on ba