##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:13692]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc. 3^rd Bail Application No.4436/2026

Sher Mohammad S/o Islam, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Sarheta, Police Station Ramgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

(Presently the Accused Is In Judicial Custody In Central Alwar).

----Petitioner Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Chaudhary, PP For Complainant : Mr. Gurvinder Singh, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order

01/04/2026

1. The instant third 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.303/2025, registered at Police Station Ramgarh (Alwar), District Alwar for the offence(s) under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 351(2) and 109(2) of

BNS.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that the second bail application of the accused petitioner was dismissed with liberty to file afresh after recording of the statement of the injured witness and the concerned medical jurist and they have already been examined. It is further contended that the injured PW.3 Manshed in his examination-in- chief has attributed the injury caused on his head with the sharp weapon, on the petitioner, however, the medical report does not

(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 03:06:34 PM)

(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:54:42 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:13692] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4436/2026] corroborate the evidence of PW.3 Manshed. It is also argued that the injured Manshed in his cross-examination has also admitted that he fell on the stone and there may be probability that the injury may be caused due to falling on the stone. The concerned medical jurist in his cross-examination has also stated that there is a probability that the injury may be caused due to falling on the stone. It is further argued that the medical jurist in his examination-in-chief and in cross-examination had deposed that the injury sustained to the injured was grievous in nature, however, nowhere, in his examination-in-chief or cross- examination, the medical jurist has stated that the injury sustained to injured Manshed was dangerous to life. It is also argued that the injured witness has also alleged that the petitioner along with the other co-accused has also caused injury to him, however, apart from the head injury, there are no other injuries, therefore, considering the above facts, the bail application of the

petitioner may be allowed.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. It is contended by learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioner along with the other co-accused assaulted the injured Manshed, which resulted in a fracture on his head and the injured remained hospitalized in private hospital and his operation was conducted. The concerned medical jurist, who has already been examined as PW.1- Jitendra after going through the MLR report of the injured, opined that the injuries sustained to injured Manshed were dangerous to life. It is also contended that learned Public Prosecutor below and the trial Court has failed to

(Uploaded on 06/04/2026 at 03:06:34 PM)

(Downloaded on 29/04/2026 at 02:54:42 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:13692] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4436/2026] appreciate the documents which was filed alongside the charge- sheet, therefore, considering the specific report of P.W. 1- Dr. Jitendra with regard to injury caused to the injured Manshed, the

bail application of the petitioner may be dismissed.

4. Heard and perused the material available on record.

5. It is not desirable to express anything on merits of the case. Though in the case diary, the concerned medical jurist has specifically opined that the injuries sustained to injured on his head were dangerous to life