[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vishnu Vishnoi vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:14441) on 27 March, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:14441]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2321/2026
Vishnu Vishnoi S/o Jagdish, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Near Gopji
Ki Puao, Vishnoiyon Ki Dhani, Khedi Salwa, Police Station
Dangiyawas, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (Presently Lodged At
Central Jail, Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shiv Kumar Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
Mr. Bhuwnesh Kachhwaha for
complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
27/03/2026
1. This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been
filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with
F.I.R. No.05/2024 registered at Police Station Dangiyawas, District
Jodhpur, for the offences under Sections 302, 307 and 120-B of
IPC and Sections 3/25 and (1-B)(A) of Arms Act.
2. The first application for bail filed on behalf of the petitioner
was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 24.11.2025 while
granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh bail application
after statements of the investigating officer are recorded before
the competent criminal court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the
prosecution, on 18.01.2024, the petitioner had fired a gunshot on
complainant's brother namely Anil with an intention to kill him due
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 02:44:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14441] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-2321/2026]
to previous animosity between the parties. From the injury
sustained from gunshot, Anil fell down and died on the spot. An
FIR was lodged under Sections 302, 307 and 120-B of IPC and
Sections 3, 25(1-B)(a), 7 and 27 of the Arms Act against the
petitioner and co-accused persons and investigation was
commenced. The petitioner is chargesheeted for the offences
under Sections 302, 307 and 120-B of IPC and Sections 3, 25(1-
B)(a) of Arms Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing
attention of the Court towards the statements of the Investigating
Officer (P.W.08), learned counsel submitted that the investigating
agency has conducted shoddy investigation in the matter as in
cross examination of Investigating Officer, he admitted to the fact
that the map prepared by the investigating agency was not
authenticated by Jitendra nor was it corroborated by any of the
eye-witnesses present so also the fact that the gun recovered at
the instance of the present petitioner was not sent for FLS
examination.
5. Learned counsel further submitted that statements of
material prosecution witnesses including eye-witnesses of the case
have already been recorded before the competent criminal court,
therefore, now there in no possibility of the petitioner influencing
them. It was further submitted that material prosecution
witnesses including eye-witness; Jitendra (P.W-02), Vikas (P.W.-
03), Pukhraj (P.W.-04) and Suraj (P.W.-05) have not supported the
prosecution story and have turned hostile.
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 02:44:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14441] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-2321/2026]
6. Lastly, it was submitted that the petitioner is in judicial
custody since 20.01.2024; the investigation in the matter has
been completed; challan has been filed before the competent
criminal court; no recovery is due to be made from the petitioner
and the trial of the case will take a sufficiently long time, therefore
the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
7. Per Contra, learned counsel for the complainant and learned
Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the bail application.
Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that country made pistol
used for murdering Anil was recovered with live cartridges at the
instance of present petitioner. He thus prayed that looking to the
gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner, he does not
deserve to be enlarged on bail.
8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material
available on record.
9. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case and from a perusal of the case file, this
Court prima facie finds that the petitioner is accused of
committing a grave and heinous offence of murder by allegedly
shooting the deceased Anil on his head at a close range with an
illegal country-made pistol.
10. At this stage, it is noteworthy that during investigation, four
empty cartridges were recovered from the place of incident. As
per the material on record, the markings on these cartridges
match with the barrel of the pistol recovered at the instance of the
petitioner. This fact, prima facie, supports the case of the
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 02:44:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14441] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-2321/2026]
prosecution and indicates the possible involvement of the
petitioner in the offence.
11. So far as the argument regarding defective or shoddy
investigation is concerned, this Court is of the view that such
issues cannot be gone into in detail at the stage of bail. At this
stage, the Court is only required to see whether a prima facie case
exists against the accused. When material is available on record
indicating involvement of the petitioner, the alleged defects or
lapses in investigation lose significance for the purpose of deciding
the bail application. Such aspects, including the manner of
investigation and its effect on the prosecution case, are matters of
evidence which can only be properly examined by the learned trial
court during the course of trial.
12. Further, although it has been contended that some of the
prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, it is to be noted that
the trial is still in progress and has not yet reached even the
halfway mark. Statements of other material witnesses are yet to
be recorded before the competent criminal court. Therefore, the
possibility of influencing remaining witnesses or even fleeing away
from justice cannot be ruled out at this stage.
13. Moreover, considering the nature and gravity of the
accusation, which involves an offence punishable under Section
302 IPC, this Court is of the opinion that the allegations against
the petitioner are serious in nature. The manner in which the
offence is alleged to have been committed and the evidence
collected during investigation do not persuade this Court to
enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 02:44:19 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14441] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-2321/2026]
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find it
to be a fit case for grant of bail to the accused-petitioner.
15. Consequently, this second application for bail under Section
483 BNSS is hereby dismissed.
16. 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.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
248-divya/-
(Uploaded on 28/03/2026 at 02:44:19 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
