##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:16071]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 9727/2025

Kamlesh S/o Shri Jiva, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Village Mor, P.s. Kushalgarh, District Banswara, Rajasthan. (Presently

Lodged In Sub Jail, Kushalgarh.)

----Petitioner Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hitendra Singh for Mr. S.S. Rathore

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

ORDER

07/04/2026

1. This second application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.32/2023 registered at Police Station Kushalgarh, Banswara, for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 325, 452,

302, 504 and 506/34 of IPC.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record of

the case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, the allegation against the present petitioner is of hitting the deceased – Manjulla with an iron rod on her head from which she succumbed to the injuries. Learned counsel further submitted that the statements of eye witnesses namely Prem Singh and Anil have already been

(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 04:38:07 PM)

(Downloaded on 11/04/2026 at 09:31:09 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16071] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-9727/2025] recorded before the competent criminal court, therefore, now there is no apprehension of the petitioner influencing them or fleeing away from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail by this Court. Learned counsel also submitted that the co-accused person namely Anil and Jiva (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Applicaiton No.7508/2023) have already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 07.07.2023 and the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the above named co-accused

persons.

4. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that no motive of the petitioner for committing the alleged offence is available on record. Drawing attention of the Court toward the challan paper, learned counsel submitted that the injury caused to the deceased – Manjulla was not intentional rather the same was caused as she intervened in the quarrel between the petitioner and Prem Singh. The petitioner is in judicial custody since long; the investigation has already been completed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time to conclude, therefore, the benefit of bail may

be granted to the accused petitioner.

5. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that murder weapon (iron rod) has been recovered at the instance of the present petitioner, therefore, his direct role in commission of the offence cannot be ignored at this stage. He further submitted that looking to specific allegation levelled against the present petitioner and to the seriousness and gravity of offences committed by him, he does

not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 04:38:07 PM)

(Downloaded on 11/04/2026 at 09:31:09 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16071] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-9727/2025] 6. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, and after meticulous perusal of the record of the case, this Court prima facie finds that the specific allegation of causing head injury to the deceased – Manjulla with an iron rod has been levelled against the present petitioner. This Court also prima facie finds that blunt weapon (iron rod) used for commission of the offence has been recovered by the investigating

agency at the instance of the present petitioner.

7. The contention of the petitioner with regard to similarity of his case with that of the co-accused persons who have been enlarged on bail vide order dated 07.07.2023 does not merit acceptance. The specific allegation of causing head injury with blunt weapon (iron rod) has been levelled against