DILAWAR KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant has filed the present bail application being aggrieved against the order dtd. 4/8/2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chauthan, District Barmer in Criminal Case No.48/2025, whereby the bail application filed by the accused-applicant under Sec. 483 B.N.S.S. was rejected. The accused-applicant is behind the bars, pursuant to the F.I.R. No.124/2024 registered at Police Station Dhanau, District Barmer against the accused-applicant for offences punishable under Ss. 191(2), 191(3), 190, 331(6), 115(2), 109(2), 61(2)(a) of BNS.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that as far as the role of the applicant is concerned, in the statement given in the FIR initially lodged, there is no overt act specified on the part of the applicant, the eye witness Khaddi Bai has stated that the applicant was standing whereas the main accused Nidaam and Makhan were assaulting the deceased. The same is the case with another witness Arbab. He further asserts that not only this, the eye witness Khaddi Bai (wife of the deceased) in her statement recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.P.C., has tried to change the stand but remained firm on the fact that the applicant used axe. He asserts that injury report (Page 68 of the paper-book) will reveal that there is no corresponding injury by any sharp weapon and there are in total three injuries which all are by the use of blunt weapon. He asserts that the cause of death as per the post mortum report is the head injury, which is not attributable to the applicant, nor causing of any injury has been alleged as against him. He further submits that co-accused Mohd. Khan and Meer Khan have already been enlarged on bail and difference between his role and their role is that he was shown to be standing near the deceased and they both were shown to be standing outside the house, except for that, their roles are identical. He, therefore, implores this Court to allow the present Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application.