Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 620 (RAJ)

Narendra @ Jitendra Valmiki v. State of Rajasthan

2025-03-06

KULDEEP MATHUR

body2025
ORDER : KULDEEP MATHUR, J. 1.This second application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.877/2023 registered at Police Station Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh, for offences under Sections 307 , 326 , 323 , 34 and 120B IPC . 2. As per the prosecution, the allegation against the petitioner is that on 24.12.2023, owing to some previous animosity with the injured-Vikas, the petitioner alongwith the co-accused persons, had brutally beaten him with blunt and sharp weapons. In the alleged incident, which occurred on 24.12.2023, the injured-Vikas had sustained one injury on his vital body part which was grievous in nature and dangerous to life, however, rest of the injuries were either simple in nature or though grievous in nature but not dangerous to life. Learned counsel submitted that the statements of the injured-Vikas have already been recorded before the competent criminal court as PW-1. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statements of the injured-Vikas, learned counsel submitted that omnibus allegations have been levelled against the present petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that there is nothing on record to indicate that the head injury was inflicted upon the injured-Vikas specifically by the present petitioner. It was further contended that since the statements of the injured-Vikas have already been recorded, now there is no apprehension of the petitioner influencing the injured or tampering with the evidence, in case he is enlarged on bail. 3. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case is likely to consume sufficiently long time. On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. However, he was not in position to refute the fact that the injured-Vikas (PW-1), in his statements recorded before the competent criminal court, has not levelled any specific allegation of inflicting head injury to him by the present petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 6. However, he was not in position to refute the fact that the injured-Vikas (PW-1), in his statements recorded before the competent criminal court, has not levelled any specific allegation of inflicting head injury to him by the present petitioner. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 6. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that since the statements of the injured-Vikas have already been recorded, now there is no apprehension of the petitioner influencing him or other material prosecution witnesses or tampering with the evidence in case he is enlarged on bail. This Court further prima facie finds that the injured-Vikas (PW-1), in his statements recorded before the competent criminal court, has not levelled any specific allegation of inflicting head injured to him by the present petitioner. This Court further prima facie finds that the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of the petitioner fleeing away from justice in case he is enlarged on bail. 7. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 8. Consequently, the second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Narendra @ Jitendra Valmiki S/o Rajesh Kumar arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.877/2023 registered at Police Station Hanumangarh Town, District Hanumangarh, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial. 9. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.