Order : 1. These bail applications under Section 483 of BNS S is filed by the applicants-accused Smt Sitadevi Wife Of Sanwara, Smt. Urmila Devi Wife Of Dharmichand, Bhagwan @ Bhagchand S/o Jagannath, Dhanraj @ Dhanna S/o Gyarsilal, Dharmichand S/o Gyarsilal, Hemraj @ Tarachand @ Taru S/o Gyarsilal, Sonu S/o Pappu, Raju S/o Sukhlal, Bholu S/o Ratanlal, seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.039/2025 dated 11.02.2025 registered at P.S. Sarwad, District - Ajmer, for the offence under Sections 190 , 191(2), 109(1) of BNS . 2. During course of argument, learned counsel offers to withdraw bail application of Dharmichand S/o Gyarsilal, and Hemraj @ Tarachand @ Taru S/o Gyarsilal. 3. Hence, the bail application filed on behalf of Dharmichand S/o Gyarsilal, and Hemraj @ Tarachand @ Taru S/o Gyarsilal are dismissed as withdrawn. 4. Thus, we are considering bail applications with respect to Smt Sitadevi Wife Of Sanwara, Smt. Urmila Devi Wife Of Dharmichand, Bhagwan @ Bhagchand S/o Jagannath, Dhanraj @ Dhanna S/o Gyarsilal, Sonu S/o Pappu, Raju S/o Sukhlal, Bholu S/o Ratanlal. 5. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and they are no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicants accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The applicants do not have any criminal antecedents. He also submits that the applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that for incident of 10.02.2025 a report under Sections 190, 191(2), 109(1) of BNS is registered by Ramdev (brother of injured) wherein he mentioned that his brother Behru who committed murder of son of Hemraj @ Tarachand @ Taru (petitioner accused) in the year 2019 and was in judicial custody and was recently released on bail, was assaulted on 10.02.2025. He further submitted that the content of FIR is sufficient to show that there was animosity between the parties and due to animosity several persons were named in FIR and it is a case of over implication. He further submitted that as per facts mentioned in report, the complainant is not an eye-witness rather he was informed by Kalu Bheel Kotwal. He further submitted that as per facts mentioned in report, the complainant is not an eye-witness rather he was informed by Kalu Bheel Kotwal. He further submitted that there are general and omnibus allegations of assault by accused but no specific attribution is made in the report. He further submitted that during investigation the statement of witnesses were recorded and there is no eye- witness to the incident. He further referred CCTV footage collected by police and submitted that as per the analysis the allegation of assault is upon Tarachand @ Taru and Dharmichand for assaulting with stick but not upon any other person. He also submitted that other persons were identified as standing at the crime scene but they have not participated in the incident. He also submitted that after the incident injured was admitted in JLN Hospital, Ajmer but later, considering that no one was there to take care of him (destitute) he was shifted in Apna Ghar, Ajmer wherein he died on 09.03.2025. He further submitted that circumstances itself indicate that it was a case of negligence in treatment of deceased as complainant or relatives of deceased have not made efforts for treatment of complainant after alleged injury sustained on 10.02.2025. He further submitted that one of the accused Raju is not named in FIR and there is no co-relation between injuries and death. He further submitted that he has already not pressed the bail application of Dharmichand, Hemraj @ Tarachand @ Taru who were allegedly found involved in the incident of assault from CCTV footage. He further submitted that two accused Sitadevi and Urmila Devi are females whereas there is no attribution of any assault upon Sonu, Bholu, Bhagwan @ Bhagchand, Dhanraj @ Dhanna. He submitted that the role and involvement of Raju is not prove, who is not named in FIR and these accused belongs to same family. He referred injury report of Behru and further post-mortem dated 10.03.2025 and submitted that all injuries were caused by blunt weapon and by and large they are simple in nature. He further referred statement of PW-2 Kalu who has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution, and submitted that Kalu has initially informed to complainant Ramdev but he is not an eye-witness. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. 8. He further referred statement of PW-2 Kalu who has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution, and submitted that Kalu has initially informed to complainant Ramdev but he is not an eye-witness. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. 8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties. 9. On the basis of report lodged by complainant Ramdev on 11.02.2025 about assault upon his brother in the evening of 10.02.2025, a criminal case is registered and the matter is investigated. During investigation injury report of injured Behru is prepared on 10.02.2025 wherein medical officer has observed that patient is unconscious and unable to make his statement. Later, injured Behru brought dead by JLN Medical Office and College on 09.03.2025 and his pos- mortem is conducted on 10.03.2025. The description after investigation mentioned by police indicate that police has recorded statement of Kalu Bheel and Manish @ Uday Singh. Kalu Bheel who is examined as PW-2 before the trial court has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. During investigation police has procured CCTV footage and found involvement of Dharmichand, Hemraj @ Tarachand @ Taru, Sonu, Raju Bheel and Bholu Bheel for offence under Sections 190 , 191(2), 109(1) and 115(2) of BNS and arrested them. The police has found that the victim was a destitute so he was admitted for care in Apna Ghar, Ajmer (NGO) and after report of death on 09.03.2025 Section 103(1) of BNS is added. The police has further stepped up the investigation and found involvement of more persons and ultimately named nine persons for acting in furtherance of common object in assaulting deceased and these nine persons are before us. 10. The material on record particularly CCTV footage named Dharmichand and Hemraj @ Tarachand @ Taru as the main accused for assault upon injured deceased Behru. Accused Urmila Devi and Sita Devi were also mentioned in CCTV footage for assault and both these are females. PW-2 Kalu has turned hostile and not supported the story of prosecution. 11. Upon hearing the arguments and perusing the record, we have found that the applicants-accused are no more required in the investigation and they are in custody for quite some time. PW-2 Kalu has turned hostile and not supported the story of prosecution. 11. Upon hearing the arguments and perusing the record, we have found that the applicants-accused are no more required in the investigation and they are in custody for quite some time. The further proceedings will take its own time, therefore, looking to entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the applicants-accused. 12. Thus, the instant bail applications filed on behalf of applicants-accused Smt Sitadevi Wife Of Sanwara, Smt. Urmila Devi Wife Of Dharmichand, Bhagwan @ Bhagchand S/o Jagannath, Dhanraj @ Dhanna S/o Gyarsilal, Sonu S/o Pappu, Raju S/o Sukhlal and Bholu S/o Ratanlal, are hereby allowed and ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court by each of petitioners with the following conditions:- (i) The applicants-accused shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner. (ii) The applicants-accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the Law. (iii) The applicants-accused shall attend the hearing of the Trial Court on the date fixed by the Trial court or as and when asked to appear before the Trial Court. (iv) In case of any violation of above conditions, the bail granted to the applicant-accused shall be liable to be canceled. 13. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court through E-mail.