Babusingh @ Vp Singh S/O Late Shri Rajaram Vs State of Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:26372]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 5244/2025 Babusingh @ VP Singh S/o Late Shri Rajaram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Jakher, Police Station Sadar Karauli, District Karauli (Rajasthan) (The Accused Petitioner Presently Confined In District Jail, Gangapur City).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta with Mr. Arif Mohammed, Mr. Rahul Sharma, Mr. Utkarsh Goyal and Ms. Chanchal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order

¶10

15/07/2025

¶11

The instant 2^nd bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No.366/2023 registered at Police Station Gangapur City, District Gangapur City for the offences under Sections 143, 452, 323, 307, 302 & 506 IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.

¶12

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that initially neither the accused-petitioner was named in the FIR nor there was any allegation of firearm injury attributed to him. Learned counsel further submits that cause of death as per postmortem report is the injury caused by firearm.

¶13

Learned counsel further submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 30.01.2024 and while dismissing his first bail

[2025:RJ-JP:26372]

[CRLMB-5244/2025]

(2 of 3)

application as withdrawn, the accused-petitioner was at liberty to file fresh bail application after examination of certain prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel further submits that three prosecution witnesses have been declared hostile as they have not supported the prosecution story. The statement of Mausam Bai has not been recorded so far because she is not turning up.

¶18

Learned counsel further submits that the complainant witness-Chetram recorded as PW-3, while lodging the FIR has not named the accused-petitioner however, before the learned trial Court he has made allegation against the accused-petitioner that he was with the other co-accused persons. Learned counsel also submits that version of complainant-Chetram (PW-3) is also not credible as in the FIR he has named Nem Singh as one of the accused however, during his statement before the learned trial Court he has stated that he has named Nem Singh in the FIR by mistake though, he was not present.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submits that the accused-petitioner was a member of unlawful assembly and punishment for a member of unlawful assembly is also of the same as main offence.

¶20

Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and also perused the material available on record including the statements of the prosecution witnesses, namely, Chetram (PW-3), Manraj (PW-6), Shiv Singh (PW-7) and Nitesh (PW-8).

¶21

On perusal of the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the Court finds that three material witnesses, namely, Manraj,

[2025:RJ-JP:26372]

[CRLMB-5244/2025]

(3 of 3)

Shiv Singh and Nitesh have been declared hostile as they have not supported the prosecution story. In the statement of complainantChetram, there is no allegation against the accused-petitioner of causing any firearm injury whereas, cause of death of the deceased is firearm.

¶26

Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and the facts stated above and so also the fact that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 30.01.2024, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶27

Accordingly, the 2^nd 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.

¶28

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶29

Ashish Kumar /5

Babusingh @ Vp Singh S/O Late Shri Rajaram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babusingh @ Vp Singh S/O Late Shri Rajaram 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

Sarjan Singh S/O Bharat Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Satish Kumar Saini S/O Anandi Lal Saini Vs Dhoop Singh Rajput Son of Karan Pal Singh

Anil Kumar S/O Late Shri Ramsharan Sharma, Vs Shri Bharthari Lok Sewa Trust

Jamshed S/O Sirdar Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Kamli Devi Wife of Late Shri Brijmohan Vs Mahesh Kumar S/O Jhutharam Yadav

Girish Nayak S/O Shri Sahukarsingh Vs Urmila Devi W/O Pappusingh