Rajesh Kumar Saini S/O Suraj Saini Vs State of Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:15874]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 322/2025

Rajesh Kumar Saini S/o Suraj Saini, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Gram Narayanpur, Thana Narayanpur, District Kotputli-Behror, Raj. (Presently Confined In Central Jail Alwar)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan, through P.P.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Maharshi with Mr. Puneet Maharshi Mr. Devanshu Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Gupta, Public Prosecutor

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order

¶11

09/04/2025

¶12

The second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No.113/2024 registered at Police Station Narayanpur, District Kotputli-Behror for the offences under Sections 419, 420 & 304 IPC and Section 15(3) of the Indian Medical Counselling Act, 1956.

¶13

First bail application of the accused-petitioner bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.5951/2024 was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 18.07.2024 with liberty to file fresh bail application after examination of the witness-Vishu before the learned trial Court.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution witness, namely, Vishu has been examined before the learned trial Court and three other material witnesses have been also examined.

[2025:RJ-JP:15874]

[CRLMB-322/2025]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel further submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 05.05.2024 and there is no evidence on record so as to connect the accused-petitioner with the alleged offence as there is no post-mortem report on record because the dead body of the deceased was cremated without getting the post-mortem.

¶19

Learned counsel also submits that the present FIR against the accused-petitioner has been lodged after a delay of 7 days without there being any satisfactory explanation which clearly speaks that the allegations have been levelled against him after thoughtful consideration by the complainant party so as to snatch money from the accused-petitioner.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submits that there are specific allegations against the accused-petitioner of administering glucose injection to the deceased. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that certain injunction were recovered from room of the accused-petitioner.

¶21

Considered the submissions made by counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the challan papers and also statements of the prosecution witnesses examined so far.

¶22

From the averments made in the FIR, this Court prima-facie, feels that there is no satisfactory explanation for delay in lodging the FIR in such a matter. The alleged incident is said to be of 06.04.2024 and the FIR has been lodged on 13.04.2024. It is also a fact on record that there is no post-mortem was got conducted of the body of the deceased before cremation and in such

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:15874]

[CRLMB-322/2025]

circumstances, it is very difficult to say that what was the actual cause of death of the deceased.

¶27

Taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and more particularly the fact that the accusedpetitioner is in custody since 05.05.2024 and also out of total 24 prosecution witnesses, as per the list of prosecution witnesses, only 4 witnesses have been examined so far, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶28

Accordingly, this second bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner named above in connection with the aforesaid FIR shall be enlarged on bail provided, he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- together with two sureties of Rs.50,000/each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶29

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶30

Ashish Kumar /37

Rajesh Kumar Saini S/O Suraj Saini v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar Saini S/O Suraj Saini v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manoj Gurjar S/O Shri Jagram, Vs Shahrukh S/O Jafar Ali

Asfaq S/O Shri Abdul Aziz B/C Musalman Vs State of Rajasthan

Pramod Sharma S/O Shri Chatur Bhuj Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravi Kumar Urf Ravi Roshan Gupta S/O Shri Jagdish Rai Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul Badawas @ Attack S/O Shri Kailash Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Prahlad Singh S/O Shri Hanuman Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan