SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 15059

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
THAKRIRAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 3538 / 2026



##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:22948]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3538/2026

Thakriram S/o Chatraram, Aged About 41 Years, Harni

Amarpura, Police Station-Revdar .dist.- Sirohi Raj. (Accused In

Dist. Jail, Sirohi)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Singh Rathore

For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP

Mr. Veer Bajrang Singh

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

13/05/2026

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.

25/2026 registered at Police Station Rewdar, District Sirohi, for the

offence punishable under Section 103(1) of the BNS. He has

preferred the present bail application under Section 483 of the

BNSS.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the

present case, the deceased Jivaram died due to cerebral bleed, as

reflected in the post-mortem report. He submits that no injury has

been found on any vital part of the body of the deceased. There is

only one simple injury on the cheek. The cause of death is not

attributed to any external injury. He further submits that, as per

(Uploaded on 14/05/2026 at 04:51:08 PM)

(Downloaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:12:24 AM)

##PAGE2##

[2026:RJ-JD:22948] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-3538/2026]

the Fard Surtahal lash of the deceased, no injury has been found

on the body of the deceased except one injury on the cheek and

another on the palm. It is contended that the death of the

deceased was natural and not caused by any injury inflicted by the

petitioner.

Learned counsel further submits that even as per the

statements of the witnesses present at the spot, no injury by any

weapon is alleged to have been caused by the petitioner. Learned

counsel has taken the Court through the statement of Bhoota

Ram, who is stated to be an eye-witness to the incident. He

submits that, according to Bhoota Ram, the aggressor was in fact

Jivaram, who attempted to assault the accused, and no specific

injury is alleged to have been caused by the petitioner. It is

further submitted that Gopal Ram, the shopkeeper present at the

site, has also stated that Jivaram was the aggressor; however, he

stated that the petitioner struck Jivaram on the cheek with the

kada worn on his hand when Jivaram attempted to assault him

with a lathi. Apart from this, no weapon is alleged to have been

used.

Learned counsel submits that, even if the prosecution case is

taken at its face value, the offence, at best, would fall under

Section 117 of the BNS , as the injuries are simple in nature. It is

further submitted that the investigation qua the petitioner is

complete and there is nothing on record linking the petitioner with

the death of the deceased. The petitioner is in judicial custody

(Uploaded on 14/05/2026 at 04:51:08 PM)

(Downloaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:12:24 AM)

##PAGE3##

[2026:RJ-JD:22948] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-3538/2026]

since 18.02.2026. It is also submitted that the conclusion of the

trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned

counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail

application. They submit that the injury caused by the petitioner

resulted in the death of the deceased.

This Court has considered the facts and circumstances of the

case. The FIR reveals that a fight had taken place between

Jivaram and Thakri Ram. Bhoota Ram and other persons stated to

be eye-witnesses have stated that, in fact, Jivaram had attacked

with a lathi. Bhoota Ram does not attribute any aggression or

injury to the petitioner. Gopal Ram states that the petitioner had

struck the deceased on the cheek; however, he also states that

Jivaram had first attacked the petitioner and was shouting at

accused Thakri Ram.

The post-mortem report as well as the Fard Surtahal lash of

the deceased do not reflect any grievous injury on any vital part of

the body. Only simple injuries have been found on the cheek and

palm. The cause of deat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top