Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Heera Bharati vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:9678) on 23 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:9678]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1516/2026
Heera Bharati S/o Sh Lahar Bharati, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Dantlawas, Police Station Jaswantpura, District Jalore. (At
Present Lodged In Sub Jail Bhimmal)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jamtaram Patel.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP.
Mr. SK Sainee for complainant.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
23/02/2026
The instant second application for bail under Section 483 of
BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner, who has
been arrested in the present matter. The requisite details of the
matter are tabulated herein below:
S. No. Particulars of the case
1. FIR Number 116/2024
2. Police Station Jaswant pura
3. District Jalore
4. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 189(12), 333
FIR and 115(2) of BNS.
5. Offences added, if any Under Section 126(2), 117(2),
109(1), 190, 191(2), 191(3)
and 54 of BNS Act.
The 1st bail application filed on behalf of petitioner i.e. S.B.
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.14339/2025 was dismissed vide
order dated 25.11.2025 passed by this Court with the liberty to the
petitioner to file fresh bail application after recording the statement
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 02:46:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 08:49:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9678] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-1516/2026]
of Injured (Mitha Lal). After rejection of first bail application, the
statement of injured has been recorded. Hence, this second
application for bail has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that
as per the statement of the injured-Mitha Lal (PW-2), the specific
allegation of inflicting lathi blows on the head is attributed to Jara
Ram. The injured has stated that he sustained injuries and later
regained consciousness during treatment at Palanpur Hospital.
It is further submitted that the injured witness has admitted in
his cross-examination that he cannot state who assaulted him after
the initial incident, who took him to the hospital or by what means
he was transported. He further submits that the injured has further
admitted before the learned trial Court that accused Hira Bharati was
not carrying any weapon. Thus, even as per the prosecution’s own
witness, no specific overt act is attributed to the present petitioner
and the allegations against him remain vague and unsubstantiated.
The relevant portion of the statement of the injured reads as
follows:-
Þtsjkjke us esjs flj ij rkcMrksM+ ykBh ls okj fd;s
ftlls eSa tehu ij csgks’k gksdj fxj x;kA fQj eq>s xkao
okys tloariqjk vLirky ysdj x;s Fks tgka ls vkxs
ikyuiqj vLirky ysdj x;sA eq>s ikyuiqj esa 2&3 fnu
ckn gks’k vk;k FkkA esjs flj] da/ks] gkFk ij pksVsa vk;h FkhA
esjk cka;k gkFk VwV x;k FkkA esjs dku o lhus ij pksVs
vk;h FkhA fQj ckn esa eSaus lquk fd esjs HkkbZ tks/kkjke us
fjiksVZ dh FkhA iqfyl us esjs c;ku ?kVuk ds 1 ekg 10
fnu ckn 17 rkjh[k dks fy;s FksA esjks tloariqjk] ikyuiqj
o tkyksj esa esfMdy eqvk;uk gqvk FkkA;g dguk lgh gS fd esjs flj esa ykBjh dh pksV yxrs gh
eSa ekSds ij csgks’k gks x;k Fkk blfy, eSa ugha crk ldrk
fd mlds ckn esjs lkFk fdUgksaus ekjihV dh o dkSu eq>s
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 02:46:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 08:49:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9678] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-1516/2026]gkWfLiVy ysdj x;s o fdl lk/ku ls ysdj x;sA ;g
dguk lgh gS fd eSa csgks’k gksus ds dkj.k ?kVuk ds ckn 3
fnuksa rd eSa dgka&dgka x;k] fdlus esjk bykt fd;k fdl
lk/ku ls ysdj x;s eSa ugha crk ldrkA ;g dguk lgh
gS fd eqyfte ghjk Hkkjrh ds gkFk esa dksbZ gfFk;kj ugha
FkkA ß
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the co-accusedJara Ram have already been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench
of this Court vide order dated 08.01.2025, passed in S.B. Criminal
Misc. Bail Application No. 12989/2024 respectively.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
petitioner is in custody since 19.11.2025 and the trial of the case
will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may
be granted to the accused-petitioner.
Per contra, learned counsel for the complainant has opposed
the bail application and submitted that although, as per the
statement of the injured, the allegation of inflicting the head injury
is attributed to Jera Ram, it is alleged that during the course of
the free fight, the petitioner also inflicted injuries by using his
bangle (कड़ा). It is, therefore, contended that the head injury is
also attributable to the present petitioner.
Learned Public Prosecutor has also vehemently opposed the
bail application.
Having heard and considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case as well as perused the material
available on record; considering the fact that the petitioner is in
custody since 19.11.2025, co-accused person has already been
enlarged on bail and the trial will take sufficiently long time to
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 02:46:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 08:49:31 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9678] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-1516/2026]conclude, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of
the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Consequently, the 2nd bail application under Section 483 of
BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-
petitioner as named in the cause title, arrested in connection with
the above mentioned FIR, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in
any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of
Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- 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.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
135-/Jitender//-
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 02:46:13 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 08:49:31 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
