Jamshed S/O Sirdar Vs State of Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:26245]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4^th Bail Application No. 8938/2025

Jamshed S/o Sirdar, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Kakrali Police Station Sadar District Alwar, Presently Near Radheyshyam Ki School, Tijara Road, Alwar. At Present In Central Jail, Alwar.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶11

Order

¶12

15/07/2025

¶13

The instant 4^th bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No.233/2024 registered at Police Station Sadar Alwar, District Alwar for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 143 and 307 IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the allegation against the accused-petitioner is of causing head injury to one Sabir.

¶15

Learned counsel further submits that the injury sustained by the injured-Sabir, which was attributed to the accused-petitioner was referred for X-ray report. The X-ray report was prepared on 27.04.2024 wherein, Radiologist has observed that no bony injury was seen. Learned counsel further submits that the Medical Jurist though, there is no bony injury has given its opinion that the

(2 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:26245]

[CRLMB-8938/2025]

injury No.1 is grievous in nature on the basis of the Radiologist opinion and the documents of the SMS Hospital. On 28.05.2024, he has also given its opinion that the injury No.1 is dangerous to life.

¶20

Learned counsel further submits that the Radiologist has been examined as PW-17 who has categorically stated that there was no bony injury was seen while preparing the X-ray report of the injured-Sabir. Learned counsel also submits that the Doctor who has given its opinion that the injury No.1 is dangerous to life has been examined as PW-21 (Dr. Yogesh Kumar) and in his crossexamination has stated that he has given opinion as regards the injury No.1 i.e. dangerous to life on the basis of SMS Hospital admission ticket and the report of the Radiologist. Learned counsel further submits that the injured-Sabir was neither operated nor he was admitted in the ICU. The injured was given only medicines for treatment.

¶21

Learned counsel also submits that in view of the aforesaid facts and the fact that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 21.04.2024 deserves to be released on bail.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application and submits that there is specific allegation against the accusedpetitioner of causing injury on the head of the injured-Sabir and the said injury has been opined to be dangerous to life on the basis of SMS Hospital medical report. He also submits that looking to the nature of injury and specific allegation against the accusedpetitioner, he does not deserves to be released on bail.

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:26245]

[CRLMB-8938/2025]

Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material available on record including the statements of the prosecution witnesses that are Radiologist and the Doctor who has given its opinion as regards the injury No.1.

¶27

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and the fact that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 21.04.2024 and so also the fact that Dr. Yogesh Kumar in his cross-examination has categorically stated that the injured-Sabir was neither operated nor admitted in the ICU, 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 4^th 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

¶29

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.

¶30

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶31

Ashish Kumar /8

Jamshed S/O Sirdar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamshed S/O Sirdar 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

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

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