##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:21127]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7755/2026

Ramdayal S/o Late Ramswaroop, Aged About 61 Years, R/o

Karoli, Police Station Kathhumar, District Alwar (Presently

Confined In District Jail, Alwar)

----Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta,

Mr. Rahul Sharma

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order

19/05/2026

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. 172/2025 registered at

Police Station Kathumar, District Alwar for the offences under

Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2) and 329(3) of BNS.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the

accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He

further submits that in the FIR, it was alleged that Vijay caused

fatal blow at the head of the deceased Ritesh, which resulted into

his death. It is also contended that it was consistent story of

prosecution till statement of injured witnesses Lokesh and

Hardayal, who were present at the place of occurrence that Vijay

caused injury at the head of the deceased Ritesh and Munesh also

infected injury at the back of the deceased with the aid of sabbal.

(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 01:36:07 PM)

(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 11:01:47 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:21127] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-7755/2026]

It is also contended that PW-1 Lokesh submitted the FIR on

22.05.2025 and his statement under Section 180 of BNSS were

recorded on 04.06.2025, wherein, he alleged that deceased was

hit at his head by Vijay and has not named that the eye witnesses

Hariom, Ramveer and Balram were present at the place of

occurrence. It is also contended that notice was issued to the

complainant Lokesh by the Investigating Agency to refer the

names of eye witnesses, who saw the incident and in compliance

to the above, the complainant Lokesh replied that Mukesh, Birbal,

Rajesh and Samay Singh have seen the occurrence. It is also

contended that the Investigating Officer issued notices to Samay

Singh, Rajesh and Birbal, however, they declined to give their

statement. It is also contended that the other named eye witness

Mukesh who has been examined as PW-2, in the Court has turned

hostile and not supported the prosecution story. It is also

contended that the witnesses who have been allegedly shown as

eye witnesses and related to Vijay has not been named in the FIR

by complainant Lokesh. In order to exonerate the named person

Vijay in the case, the aforesaid witnesses have named the present

petitioner stating that the petitioner caused injury to the deceased

Ritesh along with the other co-accused. It is also contended that

PW-1 Lokesh and PW-3 Hardayal in their Court statement have

reiterated the statement which were given before the police under

Section 180 of BNSS and stated that Vijay caused injury at the

head of deceased Ritesh. It is also contended that the statement

of so called eye witnesses namely PW-6 Ramveer and PW-7

Balram were recorded on 17.06.2025 i.e. after a delay of almost

25 days. Their statement before the Court are not in consonance

(Uploaded on 20/05/2026 at 01:36:07 PM)

(Downloaded on 20/05/2026 at 11:01:47 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:21127] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-7755/2026]

with the statement of injured witnesses. The other co-accused

Munesh who has also been alleged to cause injury at the back of

the deceased with the aid of sabbal, has already been enlarged on

bail by this Court. It is also contended that out of 21 witnesses,

the prosecution has examined 7 witnesses, the accused-petitioner

is in custody since long and trial of the case may take considerable

time, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may

be allowed.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail

application and contended that the petitioner is the main culprit

and on his instance, an attac