##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:13844]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 993/2026

Narsingh Alias Lala Alias Dharmendra S/o Ramesh, Age 26 Years, R/o Karai, Police Station Mamchari, District Karauli, Rajasthan

(Presently Lodged At Jail At Gangapurcity)

----Petitioner Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP

Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadaun with Mr. Anurag Chahar Mr. Harshit Kakani

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order

02/04/2026

1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 366/2023 registered at Police Station Gangapur City District Gangapur City for the offences under Sections 143, 452, 323, 307, 302, 506 of IPC and

Section 3/25 of Arms Act.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel contends that other co-accused persons, who have been similarly named in the FIR, have already been enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that the FIR does not contain any specific allegation attributing the act of firing upon the deceased, Hetram, to the present petitioner. Learned counsel has argued

(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 10:37:42 AM)

(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 06:28:42 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:13844] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-993/2026] that although injured witness PW-3 Chetram and PW-14 Mosami Bai have deposed against the petitioner in their statements before the Court, their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded after a delay of approximately 20 days. It is also contended that another eye-witness, PW-16 Balu Ram, has attributed the act of firing causing the fatal injury to a co-accused, namely Hemendra. Furthermore, it is submitted that PW-6 Manraj and PW-7 Shivsingh, cited as eye-witnesses, have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. Learned counsel additionally submits that the alleged recovery of the weapon at the instance of the petitioner does not incriminate him, inasmuch as the FSL report indicates that the bullets recovered from the body of the deceased do not match the firearm allegedly recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the accused–petitioner has been in judicial custody since 21.01.2024, and the conclusion of trial is likely to take a considerable period of time. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may

be allowed.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that eye-witnesses, namely PW-3 Chetram Meena and PW-14 Mosami Bai, in their depositions before the learned trial Court, have categorically and unequivocally stated that the present petitioner fired a gunshot at the deceased, Hetram, which resulted in his death. It is further contended that, pursuant to the information furnished by the petitioner, a firearm was recovered, and the said recovery has been duly corroborated by the recovery

(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 10:37:42 AM)

(Downloaded on 24/04/2026 at 06:28:42 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:13844] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-993/2026] witnesses, thereby lending credence to the prosecution case. It is also argued that the alleged delay on the part of the investigating agency in recording the statements of the eye-witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not of material consequence, inasmuch as the eye-witnesses have, in clear and unambiguous terms, deposed against the petitioner before the Court. Learned counsel further submits that the case of the present petitioner stands on a different footing and is clearly distinguishable from that of the co- accused who have been granted bail by a Coordinate Bench, in view of the specific role attributed to the petitioner in the