##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:14441]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2321/2026

Vishnu Vishnoi S/o Jagdish, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Near Gopji Ki Puao, Vishnoiyon Ki Dhani, Khedi Salwa, Police Station Dangiyawas, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (Presently Lodged At

Central Jail, Jodhpur)

----Petitioner Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shiv Kumar Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP

Mr. Bhuwnesh Kachhwaha for complainant

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

ORDER

27/03/2026

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.05/2024 registered at Police Station Dangiyawas, District Jodhpur, for the offences under Sections 302, 307 and 120-B of

IPC and Sections 3/25 and (1-B)(A) of Arms Act.

2. The first application for bail filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 24.11.2025 while granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application after statements of the investigating officer are recorded before

the competent criminal court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution, on 18.01.2024, the petitioner had fired a gunshot on complainant’s brother namely Anil with an intention to kill him due

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 02:44:19 PM)

(Downloaded on 04/04/2026 at 11:28:43 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14441] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-2321/2026] to previous animosity between the parties. From the injury sustained from gunshot, Anil fell down and died on the spot. An FIR was lodged under Sections 302, 307 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 3, 25(1-B)(a), 7 and 27 of the Arms Act against the petitioner and co-accused persons and investigation was commenced. The petitioner is chargesheeted for the offences under Sections 302, 307 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 3, 25(1-

B)(a) of Arms Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of the Investigating Officer (P.W.08), learned counsel submitted that the investigating agency has conducted shoddy investigation in the matter as in cross examination of Investigating Officer, he admitted to the fact that the map prepared by the investigating agency was not authenticated by Jitendra nor was it corroborated by any of the eye-witnesses present so also the fact that the gun recovered at the instance of the present petitioner was not sent for FLS

examination.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that statements of material prosecution witnesses including eye-witnesses of the case have already been recorded before the competent criminal court, therefore, now there in no possibility of the petitioner influencing them. It was further submitted that material prosecution witnesses including eye-witness; Jitendra (P.W-02), Vikas (P.W.- 03), Pukhraj (P.W.-04) and Suraj (P.W.-05) have not supported the

prosecution story and have turned hostile.

(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 02:44:19 PM)

(Downloaded on 04/04/2026 at 11:28:43 AM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14441] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-2321/2026] 6. Lastly, it was submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 20.01.2024; the investigation in the matter has been completed; challan has been filed before the competent criminal court; no recovery is due to be made from the petitioner and the trial of the case will take a sufficiently long time, therefore

the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

7. Per Contra, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that country made pistol used for murdering Anil was recovered with live cartridges at the instance of present petitioner. He thus prayed that looking to the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner, he does not

deserve to be en