AMIT RATHOR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant Criminal Misc. Petition under Sec. 528 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner assailing the order dtd. 11/11/2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ramganj Mandi, District Kota whereby the learned Judge without deciding the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 368 of BNSS in Criminal Case No.35/2025 proceeded with the trial thereby violating the petitioner's right to fair trial.

(2.) It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the matter. The petitioner has been suffering from Bipolar Affective Disorder (BPAD) and has been of unsound mind since the year 2019. It is submitted that petitioner has been undergoing regular medical treatment for the said condition. Counsel submits that FIR No.89/2025 came to be registered against the petitioner at Police Station Ramganj Mandi, District Kota Rural, for offence under Sec. 103(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, at the instance of the complainant/respondent No.2. As per the allegations contained in the FIR, the complainant allegedly received a phone call informing him that his brother, Vishal, had been attacked by an unknown assailant with a knife, resulting in his death. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, the police arrested the petitioner on 7/3/2025 and subsequently, filed a charge-sheet against him for offences punishable under Sec. 103(1) of the BNS, 2023 and Sec. 4/25 of the Arms Act. Learned counsel contends that the chargesheet has been filed solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that the petitioner had no role whatsoever in the alleged murder of the deceased, nor was he present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time and false evidence has been created to implicate the petitioner in the matter.

(3.) It is further contended that on 1/7/2025, the learned trial Court framed charges against the petitioner and summoned PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 for their examination. It is stated that, on account of the petitioner's medical condition, an application under Sec. 368 of the BNSS, 2023, was moved on 28/8/2025 before the learned trial Court, asserting that the petitioner was medically unfit to face the trial and, therefore, was required to be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Sec. 368 of the BNSS. It is further stated that, upon consideration of the said application, the learned trial Court directed the medical examination of the petitioner. However, it is contended that the learned trial Court neither postponed the trial as contemplated under Sec. 368 of the BNSS nor passed any specific order on the application so filed. Instead, bailable warrants were issued against PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, and no separate order-sheet entry was drawn in respect of the petitioner's application under Sec. 368 of the BNSS. It is further contended that thereafter, placing reliance on the medical opinion dtd. 30/10/2025 rendered by the Medical Examination Board, the learned trial Court, without assigning any reasons and without passing any order on the application filed under Sec. 368 of the BNSS, proceeded to pass the impugned order dtd. 11/11/2025, whereby the trial was directed to continue, which is arbitrary and contrary to law.