[2026:RJ-JP:9768]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.

3620/2026 Neelu son of Mukesh, age 20 Years, Resident of Village Takha, Police Station Kumher, District Deeg (Rajasthan) (At present confined in District Jail, Deeg).

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through P.P.

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, PP For Complainant(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

06/03/2026

1. This second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.1/2025 registered at Police Station Kumher, District Deeg (Rajasthan) for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2) & 189(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 3(5) & 109(1) of BNS, 2023.

2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 22.01.2026 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after filing of result of investigation before the learned trial Court. Now, charge-sheet has been filed in this matter thus, this second bail application has been preferred.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that there is no document available on record showing that injuries sustained to the injured are dangerous to life. Counsel submits that initially when injured was examined under Section 180 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 161 Cr.PC), he did not allege anything against the petitioner, but later on, he alleged that head injury was caused by the petitioner. Counsel also submits that co-accused namely Surendra, has already been granted the benefit of bail by this Court. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel contends that petitioner is in custody since 30.11.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the bail application. Counsel for the complainant submits that it is evident from the statement of the son of the injured that the petitioner is the author of the head injury and due to the said head injury, the injured remained hospitalized and underwent surgery. He further submits that because of the said head injury, the injured has partially lost his memory and has become unable to perform his daily routine work. He also submits that it is evident from the record that while arguing the bail application of co-accused Surendra, the same counsel made a statement that co-accused in this case ( i.e. the present petitioner) is responsible for the head injury and, on that basis, he obtained the order of bail for the co- accused Surendra. He further submits that it is also evident from the other statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 180 of BNSS that the said head injury was caused by the petitioner, due to which the injured remained hospitalized and underwent surgery.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, especially considering the fact that there is a serious allegation against the petitioner that he caused head injury to the injured, due to which the injured remained hospitalized and subsequently underwent surgery, and at present he is also facing difficulty in performing his daily routine work, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. Accordingly, this Second Bail Application stands dismissed.

8. However, petitioner would be at liberty to re