[2026:RJ-JP:3358]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16263/2025 Prempal Singh S/o Shri Sunil Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Dabadwas, Police Station Mandhan, District Kotputli- Behror. (At Present Confined In Sub- District Jail Behror)

----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP For Complainant(s) : Mr. Liyakat Khan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

16/01/2026

1. The instant bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.190/2025 registered at Police Station Mandhan, District Kotputli-Behror for offences punishable under under Sections 115(2), 126(2) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this case for offence punishable under Section 103(1) of the BNS, 2023.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that admittedly, complainant is not an eye-witness of the case. It is submitted that eye-witness of the case, namely, Gulshan Kumar has been examined under section 180 of BNSS and it has been stated by him that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and initiated a fight with the shopkeepers and other individuals present at the place of incident. Counsel submits that a CCTV footage has also been recovered in this case which shows the deceased holding a wooden stick and engaging in physical altercation with the people around him. Counsel submits that the alleged incident took place in spur of the moment as the petitioner was making an effort to restrain the deceased and dissuade him from creating a public disturbance. It is submitted that deceased died after 3 days of the alleged incident during the course of medical treatment and in such circumstances, possibility of medical negligence cannot be ruled out. It is submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 25.07.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner struck the deceased on the head, as a result of which he fell on the road and subsequently, during the course of medical treatment, succumbed to his injuries. It is submitted that the CCTV footage clearly shows the petitioner holding a sariya (rebar) at the relevant time. Counsel further submits that cause of death is shock as a result of severe head injury. Thus, looking to the nature of offence, benefit of bail may not be extended to the petitioner.

4. Heard. Perused the material available on record.

5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet including statement of the eye-witness, namely, Gulshan Kumar, as also considering the fact that alleged incident took place in spur of the moment, so also the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits and demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Prempal Singh S/o Shri Sunil Singh shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only)