Ranjeet Singh S/O Shri Bachusing Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2025)

Ranjeet Singh S/O Shri Bachusing Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused-petitioners, charge-sheeted in FIR No.21/2025 (Police Station Sadar Deeg, District Deeg) for offences under the BNS and the Arms Act and in custody, should be enlarged on bail under Section 483 of BNSS.

Court's answer

Bail refused: weighing the totality of circumstances and the material on record, the court relied on the petitioners' presence at the place of incident (the house of the deceased) at night along with sticks while other accused were armed with firearms, one person having died and another being seriously injured, and the case being still in the initial stage of trial.

Ratio / Principle

The court was not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail and dismissed the bail application.

Key takeaways

The observations made in the order are only for disposal of the instant bail application and would not prejudice the trial in any manner.obiter¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

BAIL REFUSED — S.483 BNSS (High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur; Anil Kumar Upman, J.; order dated 01/08/2025; S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8019/2025). Petitioners Ranjeet Singh and Satveer Singh, in custody since 03.04.2025 and 05.03.2025 respectively, sought bail in connection with FIR No.21/2025, Police Station Sadar Deeg, District Deeg, initially booked under BNS Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 109(1) & 331(8); after investigation the charge-sheet additionally invoked BNS Sections 118(2) & 61(2)(a) and Arms Act Sections 3/25(6) & 3/27 (defence counsel asserted the charge-sheet was aided by S.149 IPC). Counsel for petitioners argued mere presence as silent spectators, no injury caused by them, exoneration of another bystander by the investigating agency, and likely delay in trial; Public Prosecutor and complainant's counsel opposed, alleging an active nighttime role with a lathi, one death and an amputated leg. Denying bail, the single judge weighed the totality: petitioners present at the deceased's house at night with sticks while co-accused carried firearms, one person dead and another seriously injured, and the trial still at an initial stage. Observations confined to disposal of the bail application without prejudice to the trial.

[2025:RJ-JP:33592]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8019/2025

Ranjeet Singh S/o Shri Bachusing, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Khohari, Police Station Sadar Deeg, District Deeg. (Loged In District Jail Dholpur)

Satveer Singh S/o Netram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Khohari, Police Station Sadar Deeg, District Deeg. (Loged In Sub Jail, Deeg, Bharatpur).

----Petitioners

Versus

State of Rajasthan, through its PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amar Kumar
	Ms. Savita Nathawat
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP
	Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP
For Complainant(s)	: Mr. Vedant Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

01/08/2025

The instant bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.21/2025 registered at Police Station Sadar Deeg, District Deeg for the offence under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 109(1) & 331(8) of BNS. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 109(1), 331(8), 118(2) & 61(2)(a) of BNS & Sections 3/25(6) & 3/27 of Arms Act.

[2025:RJ-JP:33592]

[CRLMB-8019/2025]

(2 of 3)

Shri V.R. Bajwa, learned Senior Counsel assisted with Shri Amar Kumar and Ms. Savita Nathawat representing the petitioners submits that accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. He fervently and vehemently submits that according to the prosecution story, two different incidents have been mentioned in this case in which the investigating agency has not considered the first incident to be correct and in the subsequent incident only the presence of the petitioners at the spot have been shown. He also argues that no specific act of the petitioners have been mentioned in the charge sheet and simple presence of the petitioners as a silent spectator have been shown in the charge sheet. He further submits that it is admitted case of the prosecution that petitioners have not caused any injury on the person of deceased or any other injured. It is submitted that prosecution has filed charge sheet against the petitioners with the aid of section 149 of IPC. It has also been argued that another person like them who was present at the scene of the incident was not considered involved in the incident by the investigating agency. He submits that petitioners are in custody since 03.04.2025 & 05.03.2025 respectively. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. Looking to the long list of prosecution witnesses, trial will take long considerable time in its conclusion.

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the bail application. They submit that the petitioners are not entitled to get bail only because the investigating agency has considered the first incident suspicious.

[2025:RJ-JP:33592]

[CRLMB-8019/2025]

(3 of 3)

The petitioners have an active role in causing the incident and they were present at the time of the incident, which happened at night, along with other accused including the weapon like Lathi. In the said incident, one person has died and one person's leg has been amputated. As far as the exoneration of the other person by the investigating agency is concerned, it is stated that appropriate legal remedies are being taken by the complainant party in this regard. The petitioners’ presence at the scene of the incident with a weapon at night reflects his criminal mindset. Learned counsel for the complainant also argues that the case is still in its initial stage before the trial court.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, as also considering the material available on record, especially the fact that the petitioners were present at the place of incident, which is the house of the deceased, at night along with sticks while other accused were armed with firearms and in this incident, one person has died and the other is seriously injured and the case is still in the initial stage of trial, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed.

The observation made hereinabove is only for disposal of the instant bail application and would not prejudice trial in any manner.

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

GAUTAM JAIN /213