KAMLESH MAHLA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This instant bail application has been filed under Sec. 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 189/2024 registered at Police Station Mukundgarh, District Jhunjhunu for the offences punishable under Ss. 140(1), 127(2), 115(2), 126(2), 3(5) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nayaya Sanhita, (in short 'BNS') 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sec. 140(1), 127(2), 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 103(1), and 303(2) of BNS, 2023.

(2.) It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that cross-case have been registered between the parties as deceased himself entered in the house of the petitioner with the intent of molestation. He further submits that deceased sustained some injuries for which he was admitted in the hospital where it was informed that he was suffering from stomach pain. He argues that later on, he was operated and finally after six days, he died. Final opinion With regard to the cause of death was kept reserved till reciving FSL report and Histopathological examination reports. Finally, it was opined that cause of death is shock as a result of blunt trauma abdomen (Injury No. 8 as mentioned in PMR), its complications and consequences. He contends that police filed charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sec. 103(1) of BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Sec. 302 of IPC) but learned Magistrate took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sec. 105 of BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Sec. 304 of IPC). He further contends that in the FIR registered on behalf of the petitioner, investigated was conducted and police filed charge-sheet against the deceased for offences punishable under Ss. 140(1), 127(2), 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 351(2), 103(1), and 303(2) of BNS, 2023. He argues that admittedly no recovery has been affected from the petitioner as there is no allegation of using any lethal weapon. He further argues that trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. He further contends that the petitioner is in custody since 29/10/2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned Counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. They submit that admittedly deceased was beaten up by the petitioner and others in his house and he sustained several injuries and finally on account of the injuries caused to him, he died. It is contended that the petitioner actively participated in the commission of crime.