Durgesh Choudhary Son of Shri Hemant Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Brajlal Saini S/o Shri Pappuram Saini, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Barkheda, Police Station Malakheda, District Alwar (Raj.) (At Present In Central Jail, Alwar).

¶17

----Petitioners

¶18

Versus

¶19

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶20

----Respondent

¶21

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shamsul Aarefin, Adv. Mr. Gajender Singh Rathore, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, PP with Mr. Anirudh Singh, Astt. Adv. For Complainant : Mr. Prakash Thakuriya, Adv.

¶22

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order

20/01/2026

[2026:RJ-JP:2408]

[CRLMB-11562/2025]

(2 of 4)

These instant bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. on behalf of accused-petitioners. The accusedpetitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.264/2025, registered at Police Station Malakheda, District Alwar, for the offence(s) under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), and 333 of BNS.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the accusedpetitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. It is contended that specific allegations of causing injuries to the deceased Mangtu Ram are against the other co-accused Bhola. It is also contended that deceased Mangtu Ram received a head injury for which he was remained hospitalized for a month and later on died. The injuries caused to the other injured Chhoti Devi, Ramesh Saini and Harchand were found to be simple blunt in nature and there was no murderous intention on the part of the petitioners. It is further contended that out of 26 cited witnesses, prosecution has examined all the material witnesses including the Investigating Officer. The material witnesses namely PW.1 Harchand, PW.2 Ramesh Saini, PW.3 Mukesh Saini, PW.4 Kalu Ram, PW.5 Chhote Lal, PW.6 Bhagchand, PW.7 Mangilal Saini, PW.8 Raju Saini and PW.9 Chhoti Devi, in their statements have not attributed the injuries caused to the deceased Mangtu Ram to the present petitioners. The accused-petitioners are in custody since 02.07.2025 and 30.07.2025 respectively and further trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, their bail applications may be allowed.

¶30

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant have vehemently opposed

[2026:RJ-JP:2408]

[CRLMB-11562/2025]

(3 of 4)

the grant of bail application and contended that the petitioners along with the other co-accused came together armed with weapon and after forming the unlawful assembly assaulted the deceased Mangtu Ram and other injured persons. The deceased Mangtu Ram received head injury and was operated for the same and remained hospitalized for a month, however he could not recover from the said head injury and ultimately died and the other injured persons also sustained injuries. It is contended that the name of the petitioners have been categorically stated by most of the material witnesses and their presence at the place of occurrence is not denied, therefore, considering the allegations levelled against the petitioners and the gravity of the offence, the petitioners bail applications may be dismissed.

¶35

Heard and perused the material available on the record. 5. All the eye-witnesses to the incident have deposed that the other co-accused Bhola hit the deceased Mangtu Ram at his head and Mangtu Ram was taken to hospital. The specific attribution of causing injury at the head of the deceased Mangtu Ram is against the other co-accused Bhola and not against the present petitioners. Apart from the single head injury, there was no injury caused at the vital part of the deceased Mangtu Ram and the injury sustained to other injured were also found to be simple blunt in nature and not grievous or dangerous to life. Therefore, considering the aforesaid fact, without expressing anything on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail.

¶36

Accordingly, these bail applications under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners

(4 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:2408]

[CRLMB-11562/2025]

namely; 1. Durgesh Choudhary Son Of Shri Hemant Choudhary, 2. Pappuram Saini S/o Shri Manglyaram @ Kalya, 3. Mahesh Saini S/o Shri Manglyaram @ Kalya and 4. Brajlal Saini S/o Shri Pappuram Saini, in connection with FIR No.264/2025, registered at Police Station Malakheda, District Alwar, shall be enlarged on bail provided both of them furnish 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 their appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶41

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶42

Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-28-29

Durgesh Choudhary Son of Shri Hemant Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durgesh Choudhary Son of Shri Hemant Choudhary 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

Pintu S/O Lohre Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhopal Singh S/O Murari Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Salman Khan Son of Rasid Vs State of Rajasthan

Taleem S/O Ramzan Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikas Porwal @ Rinku S/O Suresh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Rubina W/O Late Shri Mohammad Lukman Vs State of Rajasthan