ORDER : RAVI CHIRANIA, J. [1]- S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9654/2025 (Mukesh Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan) : 1. The instant bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed by accused-applicant Mukesh Kumar S/o. Subhash Chandra in connection with FIR No.211/2024 registered at P.S. Gogamedi, District Hanumangarh for offence under Sections 103 (1), 115(2), 126(2), 191(2), 190, 331(8), 191(3), 109(1), 118(2), 127(2) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 4 /25 of Arms Act, against the rejection order dated 06.8.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.238/2025 (Sessions Case No.03/2025, State Vs. Deepak & Anr.), whereby the bail application filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested by the police in connection with the FIR impugned on 19.11.2024. The Investigating Officer conducted investigation and filed charge-sheet on 15.12.2024 and statements of material witnesses have also been recorded by the trial court. He submitted that the FIR impugned shows that one Bishan Singh S/o. Bhanwar Singh lodged a named FIR against certain persons alleging that they came armed with deadly weapons and by causing severe injuries to the deceased-Manoj killed him with pre-mediated mind. On account of that the impugned FIR was registered on 16.9.2024. 3. Counsel submits that the Investigating Officer recorded detailed conclusion of incident that happened on 16.9.2024 between the deceased, main accused persons and also with certain persons, though, not named in the FIR but were present on the spot without any object or pre-mediated mind and further there was no overt act assigned to the present petitioner. 4. By referring to the detailed conclusion as recorded by the Investigating Officer, counsel specifically submitted that, in respect of the bail application of accused Mukesh Kumar, the entire allegations are against one Vijendra @ Kidiya and Jaideep JD, who were armed with Knife and caused injury to the deceased. 5. He further submitted that, as such, their happens to be no dispute from the conclusion of charge-sheet, however, a petty incident occurred regarding sharing/using of cot by the deceased and accused in the Gogamedi mela, a local festival, which led to the alleged incident, in which, the deceased suffered several serious injuries. The complete conclusion is against accused-Jaideep JD and Vijendra @ Kidiya and there are no allegations as such against the present petitioner. 6. The complete conclusion is against accused-Jaideep JD and Vijendra @ Kidiya and there are no allegations as such against the present petitioner. 6. Counsel submitted that the deceased died on account of stab wounds, which have not been assigned to the present petitioner. He further submitted that after completing the investigation and filing charge-sheet, the trial court has recorded the statements of material witnesses, namely, PW-1 Jagar Singh, PW-3 Jaideep, PW-4 Dinesh Kumar, PW-5 Ajay Dev and PW-6 Deepak Kumar, who have not supported the story of prosecution and denied the version of complainant as reported vide the impugned FIR and consequently they were declared hostile. 7. Counsel submitted that a perusal of statements would show that none of these witnesses stated to have seen the alleged incident and none of them named the present petitioner. On account of the fact, these important and material witnesses have not named the present petitioner and also that they have been declared hostile the complete case of the prosecution itself looses its sanctity and declares the case false and baseless against the present petitioner. 8. In view of the statement of material witnesses as submitted above, counsel for the petitioner prayed that the petitioner Mukesh Kumar be enlarged on bail. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner was also involved with the main accused persons i.e. Jaideep Singh JD and Vijendra @ Kidiya and he was also armed with deadly weapon and caused severe injuries to the deceased, on account of which, he died. Thus, the petitioner-Mukesh Kumar is not entitled to be enlarged on bail by this Court. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused complete charge-sheet and statements of material witnesses as recorded by the trial court. This Court noted that the conclusion as recorded by the Investigating Officer in the charge-sheet is majorly against two persons i.e. Jaideep Singh JD and Vijendra @ Kadiya, who were armed with Knife and other deadly weapon and caused stab wounds to the deceased as per the PMR Report. Further, none of the material witnesses, namely, PW-1 Jagar Singh, PW-3 Jaideep, PW-4 Dinesh Kumar, PW-5 Ajay Dev and PW-6 Deepak Kumar has made any incriminating statement against the present petitioner. 11. Further, none of the material witnesses, namely, PW-1 Jagar Singh, PW-3 Jaideep, PW-4 Dinesh Kumar, PW-5 Ajay Dev and PW-6 Deepak Kumar has made any incriminating statement against the present petitioner. 11. This Court noted that as there is no specific allegation against the petitioner-Mukesh Kumar in the charge-sheet and none of the material witnesses have made any statement against him and further no injury has been assigned to him, therefore, the present petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail considering overall facts and circumstances of the case. 12. Consequently, this bail application filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Mukesh Kumar S/o. Subhash Chandra shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.211/2024 registered at P.S. Gogamedi, District Hanumangarh provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial. [2] S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.1301/2025 (Dheeraj Soni Vs. State of Rajasthan) 1. The instant bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed by accused-applicant Dheeraj Soni in connection with FIR No.211/2024 registered at P.S. Gogamedi, District Hanumangarh for offence under Sections 103 (1), 115(2), 126(2), 191(2), 190, 331(8), 191(3), 109(1), 118(2), 127(2) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 4 /25 of Arms Act, against the rejection order dated 17.1.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.17/2025 (Sessions Case No.03/2025). 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner-Dheeraj Soni, who is aged about 29 years, is quite an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal antecedents, as noted by the trial court while rejecting his bail application. 3. Counsel further submits that the detailed conclusion as recorded by Investigating Officer shows that the petitioner simply came to Gogamedi Mela/festival, where co-incidentally or accidentally, he was present on the spot but was not a part of accused Jaideep Singh JD and Vijendra @ Kadiya. 4. Counsel further submits that the petitioner did not carry any arms and was not aware of any alleged enmity or dispute between the deceased and accused-Jaideep Singh JD and Vijendra @ Kadiya. 5. 4. Counsel further submits that the petitioner did not carry any arms and was not aware of any alleged enmity or dispute between the deceased and accused-Jaideep Singh JD and Vijendra @ Kadiya. 5. Counsel further submits that there is no conclusion against the petitioner in charge-sheet, which may lead to the conclusion that he committed the offence as alleged in the FIR impugned. 6. Counsel further submits that the learned trial court has recorded statement of material witnesses, namely, PW-1 Jagar Singh, PW-3 Jaideep, PW-4 Dinesh Kumar, PW-5 Ajay Dev and PW-6 Deepak Kumar and none of them have supported the story of prosecution and further they did not alleged any over act to the present petitioner. 7. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail as he is behind bars since 21.9.2024 and still the trial of case is likely to take a long time. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application and submitted that petitioner was also involved the main accused persons i.e. Jaideep Singh JD and Vijendra @ Kidiya and he was also armed with deadly weapon and caused severe injuries to the deceased, on account of which, he died. Consequently, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail by this Court. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties; perused complete challan papers and the statement of material witnesses as recorded by the trial court. 10. This Court noted that the Investigating Officer has not alleged any overt act to the present petitioner, however, petitioner’s presence at the time of alleged incident is a co-incidence or accidental. Further, none of the material witnesses made any incriminating statement against the petitioner. More importantly, all the material witnesses have destroyed the complete case of prosecution by denying the story as presented in the FIR and the conclusion as drawn in the charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer. Be that as it may, once the important and material witnesses have been declared hostile and none of them made any statement incriminating against the present petitioner, in such circumstance, this Court is inclined to enlarge the present petitioner on bail. 11. Be that as it may, once the important and material witnesses have been declared hostile and none of them made any statement incriminating against the present petitioner, in such circumstance, this Court is inclined to enlarge the present petitioner on bail. 11. Consequently, this bail application filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Dheeraj Soni S/o. Jogendra shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.211/2024 registered at P.S. Gogamedi, District Hanumangarh provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial. [3] S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.5977/2025 (Sunny Vs. State of Rajasthan) 1. The instant bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed by accused-applicant Sunny in connection with FIR No.211/2024 registered at P.S. Gogamedi, District Hanumangarh for offence under Sections 103 (1), 115(2), 126(2), 191(2), 190, 331(8), 191(3), 109(1), 118(2), 127(2) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 4 /25 of Arms Act, against the rejection order dated 09.5.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.121/2025 (Sessions Case No.03/2025). 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner-Dheeraj Soni, who is aged about 19 years, is quite an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has no criminal antecedents, as noted by the trial court while rejecting his bail application. 3. Counsel further submits that the detailed conclusion as recorded by Investigating Officer shows that the petitioner simply came to Gogamedi Mela/festival, where co-incidentally or accidentally, he was present on the spot but was not a part of accused Jaideep Singh @ JD and Vijendra @ Kadiya. 4. Counsel further submits that the petitioner did not carry any arms and was not aware of any alleged enmity or dispute between the deceased and accused-Jaideep Singh @ JD and Vijendra @ Kadiya. 5. Counsel further submits that there is no conclusion against the petitioner in charge-sheet, which may lead to the conclusion that he committed the offence as alleged in the FIR impugned. 6. 5. Counsel further submits that there is no conclusion against the petitioner in charge-sheet, which may lead to the conclusion that he committed the offence as alleged in the FIR impugned. 6. Counsel further submits that the learned trial court has recorded statement of material witnesses, namely, PW-1 Jagar Singh, PW-3 Jaideep, PW-4 Dinesh Kumar, PW-5 Ajay Dev and PW-6 Deepak Kumar and none of them have supported the story of prosecution and further they did not alleged any over act to the present petitioner. 7. In view of the above, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail as he is behind bars since 21.9.2024 and still the trial of case is likely to take a long time. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application and submitted that petitioner was also involved with the main accused persons i.e. Jaideep Singh @ JD and Vijendra @ Kidiya and he was also armed with deadly weapon and caused severe injuries to the deceased, on account of which, he died. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail by this Court. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties; perused complete challan papers and the statement of material witnesses as recorded by the trial court. 10. This Court noted that the Investigating Officer has not alleged any overt act to the present petitioner, however, petitioner’s presence at the time of alleged incident appears to be a co-incidence or accidental. Further, none of the material witnesses made any incriminating statement against the petitioner. More importantly, all the material witnesses have destroyed the complete case of prosecution by denying the story as presented in the FIR and the conclusion as drawn in the charge-sheet by the Investigating Officer. Be that as it may, once the important and material witnesses have been declared hostile and none of them made any statement incriminating against the present petitioner, in such circumstance, this Court is inclined to enlarge the present petitioner on bail. 11. Be that as it may, once the important and material witnesses have been declared hostile and none of them made any statement incriminating against the present petitioner, in such circumstance, this Court is inclined to enlarge the present petitioner on bail. 11. Consequently, this bail application filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Sunny S/o. Subhash shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.211/2024 registered at P.S. Gogamedi, District Hanumangarh provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial. [4] S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.9655/2025 (Vijendra @ Kidiya Vs. State of Rajasthan) 1. The instant bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed by accused-applicant Vijendra @ Kidiya in connection with FIR No.211/2024 registered at P.S. Gogamedi, District Hanumangarh for offence under Sections 103 (1), 115(2), 126(2), 191(2), 190, 331(8), 191(3), 109(1), 118(2), 127(2) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 4 /25 of Arms Act, against the rejection order dated 16.7.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.220/2025 (Sessions Case No.03/2025, State Vs. Deepak & Anr.). 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant by levelling false and baseless allegations and by exaggerating the facts made him main accused in this case, whereas the complete case has been denied by the material witnesses, whose statements have been recorded by the trial court. 3. Counsel further submits that the manner in which the Investigating Officer has recorded the conclusion shows that intentionally their names were specifically recorded and injuries were assigned to them by specifically assigning overt act to them. 4. Counsel further submits that even if what has been taken to be true, it was simply a petty dispute regarding sharing/exchange of cot between the petitioner and the deceased. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the statement of material witnesses as recorded by the trial court he deserves to be enlarged on bail by this Court. 5. 4. Counsel further submits that even if what has been taken to be true, it was simply a petty dispute regarding sharing/exchange of cot between the petitioner and the deceased. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the statement of material witnesses as recorded by the trial court he deserves to be enlarged on bail by this Court. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor strongly argued and opposed the bail application and submitted that the FIR as well as the detailed conclusion as recorded by the Investigating Officer specifically names present petitioner Vijendra @ Kidiya and his brother Jaideep JD. This petitioner was armed with Knife and caused stab wounds to the deceased, on account of which, he died. Once there is a specific overt act mentioned in the FIR and the conclusion of the Investigating Officer in the charge-sheet, in such circumstance, the petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused complete charge-sheet and the statements of material witnesses as recorded by the trial court. 7. This Court noted that prima facie entire incident was of petty nature, however, the conclusion as recorded by Investigating Officer shows serious and active involvement of present petitioner alongwith his brother, who came armed with deadly weapons and caused serious injuries to the deceased. The post-mortem report dated 16.9.2024 shows stab wounds on account of which the deceased died. 8. This Court takes note of the fact that detailed conclusion cannot be ignored noticing serious conduct of the petitioner as well as his brother. As far as the statement of material witnesses are concerned, this Court noted that though these witnesses have been declared hostile as they denied story of the prosecution but the circumstances of the case; the injuries as suffered by the deceased and the presence of petitioner has not been disputed. Therefore, in such circumstance, this Court is not inclined the enlarge the present petitioner-Vijendra @ Kidiya on bail. 9. Consequently, the bail application filed by the petitioner Vijendra @ Kidiya is dismissed. Note : It is made clear that the observations made herein in no manner shall prejudice the proceedings of ongoing trial pending before the trial court.