Dismissed

Rohitash S/O Ramchandra v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Dec 2025CRLMB/15403/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application under Section 483 BNSS by an accused in an assault-cum-SC/ST Act case. The court found the role attributed to him prima facie sufficient for complicity despite hostile witnesses and held it not a fit case for bail.

What the court decided

AI extract

Rohitash S/O Ramchandra Vs State of Rajasthan — Caste Atrocities | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:49070]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 15403/2025

¶4

Rohitash S/o Ramchandra, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Sarund Police Station Sarund District Kotputli Behror. (Presently Accused Petitioner Is Confined At Sub Jail, Kotputli-Behror).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rinesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶11

Order

¶12

02/12/2025

¶13

Instant second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Rohitash S/o Ramchandra seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.304/2024 dated 20.11.2024 registered at P.S. Sarund, District -Kotputli, Behror , for the offence under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 352, 351(3), 103(1), 3(5) of BNS and 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the

(2 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:49070]

[CRLMB-15403/2025]

applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time.

¶19

Learned Counsel, while referring to the statement of PW1, Dr. Rajnesh Meena, submitted that the cause of death of the deceased is septicemia, septic shock, and multi-organ failure due to perforation and peritonitis. He further submitted that the evidence on record clearly indicates that the deceased was a habitual drinker, and the intestines may be perforated due to his drinking habits. Learned Counsel further submitted that the FIR was registered by the present petitioner himself, and that the police, in order to close the case, have implicated the petitioner falsely. He also submitted that if the petitioner would not have registered a case, the cremation of the deceased would have already taken place. Learned counsel further submitted that deceased would create nuisance after drinking and petitioner and other persons have just stopped him from creating a scene. Learned Counsel pointed out that other witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution’s case. At last, he submitted that present petitioner is in custody since 26.11.2024 and still the trial will take its own time.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties.

[2025:RJ-JP:49070]

[CRLMB-15403/2025]

(3 of 4)

On the basis of complaint lodged by complainant Udai Singh about assault upon brother Khyali Ram FIR no. 304/2024 dated 20.11.2024 is registered at P.S. Sarondh, District Kotputli, Behror for incident of 17.11.2024. After investigation police has named Rohitash and Udai Singh @ Uddam Singh as an accused. The investigation further suggests that only to shield present petitioner Rohitash a false report is registered by Udai Singh against Krishna Yadav and others. The material on record submitted by learned counsel for petitioner indicate that 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. Herein, the material on record clearly indicate that deceased Khyali Ram and present petitioner are brothers.

¶26

PW-1 Ram Chandra who is father of deceased and also of present petitioner have turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. PW-2 Pankaj Tanwar has named present petitioner for assaulting Khyali Ram. PW-3 Laxman has also named present petitioner for assaulting Khyali Ram. PW-4 Naresh has turned hostile but he named present petitioner for taking Khyali Ram with him. PW-5 Dara Singh has also turned hostile but he also named present petitioner. PW-11 is Dr. Rajnish who prepared PMR Ex. P/15. As per him, the deceased has expired on 19.11.2024 and cause of death is septicemia, septic shock, and multi-organ failure due to perforation and peritonitis. We have considered his crossexamination as well.

¶27

Having considered the evidence available on record and also the material placed on record, the present petitioner is

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:49070]

[CRLMB-15403/2025]

named as the person who assaulted the deceased. The material brought on record is not sufficient to draw a conclusion that present petitioner is not a person behind assault which resulted into perforation to deceased.

¶32

The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicant in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused on bail.

¶33

Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicant accused at this stage.

¶34

Accordingly, the second application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Rohitash S/o Ramchandra is hereby dismissed.

¶35

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶36

CHETNA BEHRANI /11

Rohitash S/O Ramchandra v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rohitash S/O Ramchandra v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uday Kumar Son of Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Vs the Power Grid Corporation of India Limited

Santosh Meena D/O Bharosi Lal Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Kumar Soni S/O Shri Radheyshyam Soni Vs the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Manager, Shri 1008 Chand Prabhu Digambar Jain Atishay Kshetra Dehra Vs Babulal Yadav S/O Begraj Yadav

Dilawar S/O Kanchan Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramkhiladi S/O Shri Shankarlal Vs the State of Rajasthan