[2026:RJ-JP:7173]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3^rd Bail Application No. 2436/2026 Surendra S/o Girdharilal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Deratu, Ps Nasirabad Sadar, District Ajmer. (At Present Central Jail, Ajmer).

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Mahershi, Adv. with Mr. Devanshu Saini, Adv.

Mr. Yogesh Khandelwal, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

13/02/2026

1. The instant third application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.344/2022 registered at Police Station Nasirabad Sadar, District Ajmer for offences punishable under Sections 302, 34 IPC. After completion of investigation, Police filed charge-sheet for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201/34 IPC in the court concerned.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that first bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed in default vide order dated 26.07.2024. Counsel submits that second bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.01.2025 with liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording the testimony of seven named material witnesses including the Informant. Counsel submits that all the material witnesses have been examined during the course of trial. At initial stage, it was disclosed by the witnesses to the Medical Experts, where deceased was brought for the treatment in intoxicated condition that he sustained injuries resulting from a fall while in an intoxicated state. However, later on FIR was registered alleging therein that deceased disclosed the fact to Informant that he was badly beaten up by the petitioner and others due to which he sustained injuries. Counsel submits that now Informant has been examined during the course of trial wherein he has not alleged anything in examination-in-chief and he completely remained silent and has stated that police personnel took his signatures on report and other documents.

3. It is contended that the accused petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that there is no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and conclusion of trial will take considerable time. He contends that petitioner is in custody since 05.10.2022 and as such, till date, he has suffered incarceration of more than three years and four months. Counsel submits that the period of custody is always relevant consideration for grant of bail. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer of bail. It is submitted that looking to gravity of offence and evidence so far come on record, the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail. He, thus, crave dismissal of these bail applications.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

6. According to the prosecution case, the petitioner is the brother of the girl ‘P’ with whom deceased was found in compromising position and therefore, petitioner and other family members gave beating to the deceased and due to the injuries, he died, but said girl ‘P’ has not been included in the list of witnesses while Investigating Agency has relied upon her statement.

7. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case especially the statements of the material witnesses and the facts that the petitioner is in custody since 05.10.2022 and till date, he has suffered incarceration of more than three years and four months; absence of criminal antecedents; trial will take time in its conclusion, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

8. Consequently, this third bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Surendra S/o Girdharilal shall be released on bail, p