Second bail application in an FIR for rioting and attempt to murder. Court noted charge-sheet filed, no criminal antecedents, custody over four months, and prolonged trial, and enlarged petitioner on bail without commenting on merits.
Petitioner enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2025:RJ-JP:16522]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IInd Bail Application No. 5179/2025
Maharam S/o Dantaram, Resident Of Gram Sewakheda, Police Station Kishangarhbas, District- Khairthal-Tijara, Rajasthan (At Present Lodged In The Central Jail, Alwar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashivn Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP Mr. Chandra Shekhar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
21/04/2025
The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 329/2024 registered at Police Station Tijara, District Bhiwadi for the offence(s) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341 and 307 of IPC.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 07.02.2025 by this court and it is argued that afterwards police has submitted the charge-sheet against the accusedpetitioner before the concerned court. The story of the prosecution is exaggerated and prima facie no case is made out against present accused-petitioner for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. It is also contended that other co-accused Sheeshram has been enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 08.04.2025
[2025:RJ-JP:16522]
[CRLMB-5179/2025]
(2 of 4)
and the case of the present accused-petitioner is on better footing than the case of co-accused Shesshram. It is also vehementally argued that the name of the petitioner did not appear in the FIR and injured witnesses have also not named the petitioner in their statements rendered under Section 161 Cr.P.C. All the witnesses have attributed their injuries caused to them to other co-accused and not to the petitioner. It is also contended that complainant submitted CCTV footage in which presence of present petitioner was not present though lateron, in the photographs petitioner was seen with a stick in his hand. The petitioner did not assault the injured, he has falsely been implicated in this case. It is also contended that both the parties caused injuries to each other and even the complainant party was found with arms in their hands. It is also contended that the story itself is exaggerated as it is alleged in the FIR that the fire arm injury was sustained but the concerned medical jurist has clearly opined that injuries caused to injured Rajendra and Hansraj but has not given the opinion that the injuries sustained to Rajendra was fire arm injury, therefore considering the above facts, the second bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed.
Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application.
It is contended by learned counsel for the complainant that the injured were not knowing to the petitioner and in the FIR itself it is clearly stated that alongwith the other named co-accused persons some unknown persons came and assaulted the complainant party with the aid of lathi and other arms. It is also contended that as a result of assault Rajendra, Ramrati and
[2025:RJ-JP:16522]
[CRLMB-5179/2025]
(3 of 4)
Hansraj sustained multiple grievous injuries and other injured Anita and Saroj also sustained injuries. It is also contended that presence of the present petitioner is clearly shown in the CCTV footage and independent witness Dharmpal in his statement rendered under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has clearly stated the specific act of present petitioner alongwith the other accused-persons, petitioner party is aggressor in the said offence. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this court vide detailed order thereafter no circumstances have changed, therefore considering the gravity of the offence and injuries sustained to the injured the second bail application of the present petitioner deserves to be dismissed.
Heard and perused the material available on the record.
Injured witnesses have attributed their injuries to other coaccused, it is not desirable for the court to express any opinion on the merits of the case, though the independent witness Dharampal has shown the presence of the present petitioner at the place of occurrence, however considering the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner and also considering the fact that charge-sheet has already been submitted, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and the petitioner is in custody for more than four months and further trial of the case may take considerable time, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accusedpetitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the second bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Maharam S/o Dantaram, in connection with FIR No. 329/2024
[2025:RJ-JP:16522]
[CRLMB-5179/2025]
(4 of 4)
registered at Police Station Tijara, District Bhiwadi shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
ashu /10
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second bail application should be granted after the first was dismissed, given charge-sheet filing and parity with a co-accused.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Maharam S/o Dantaram
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
Praveer Bhatnagar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
