Order

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. 72/2026 registered at Police Station Kardhani, District Jaipur (West) for the offences under Sections 110 and 3(5) of BNS.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that prima facie, no offence under Section 109(1) of the BNS is made out against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the injured sustained only a single blow to the head, which occurred in a sudden fit of rage during an altercation between the parties. Learned counsel further contends that, as per the statement of the injured recorded under Section 180, the altercation took place between the petitioner’s wife and his son, prior to the petitioner’s involvement. It is also argued that there was no premeditated attack or intention to assault the victim. It is submitted that the charge-sheet has already been filed before the concerned trial court. In support of the submissions, reliance has been placed on the following judgments: Gurmukh Singh vs. State of Haryana (2009) 15 SCC 635; Jagrup Singh vs. State of Haryana (1981) 3 SCC 616; Charanjeet vs. State of Delhi (Crl. A. 888/2023); Vivek Kumar vs. State of NCT of Delhi (Crl. A. 906/2017); Laxman Mahadeo Sariputra vs. State of Maharashtra 2001 (3) Crimes (SC) 183; and Ganesh Mewara vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1507/2026). The accused-petitioner is in custody for a considerable period and the trial of the case will take considerable time, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. It is contended that the injured sustained five injuries, and Injury No. 1 has been opined to be dangerous to life. It is further submitted that the injured remained unconscious for a period of ten days and had to undergo surgery for the head injury. It is also contended that, in addition to the aforesaid injuries, the injured sustained other injuries as detailed in the injury report. Therefore, in view of the gravity of the injuries his bail application deserves to be dismissed.

4. Heard and perused the material available on record.

5. It is alleged against the petitioner that he caused a head injury to the injured and also inflicted multiple other injuries. As per the medical report injury No. 1, which was sustained on the head was serious in nature and required surgical intervention. The discharge summary reveals that the injured suffered a right frontal contusion with the effect of fracture, and he was subjected to surgical treatment, including a craniotomy. Apart from the head injury, the injured also sustained four additional injuries, including injuries to the right ear, the back of the right elbow, and the left eye, where subconjunctival hemorrhage was noted. Therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and the nature and gravity of the injuries, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

6. Accordingly, the instant criminal misc. bail application is hereby dismissed.