MANOHAR SINGH ALIAS MANU v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: SUNIL BENIWAL
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2026-08-05. MANOHAR SINGH ALIAS MANU v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2026:RJ-JP:36716] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5876/2026 CNR: RJHC010440742026 | URN: CRLMB / 13065U / 2026 Manohar Singh Alias Manu S/o Shri Iqbal Singh Sikligar, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Kala Patha, Nanak Nagar, Police Station Kata Phod, District Dewas Madhya Pradesh (Presently Lodged In District Jail Bhilwara) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. K. Bhati Mr. Deepesh Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL Order 05/08/2026 1. This application for bail has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of BNSS (old Section 439 of Cr. P. C. ). The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S. No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 130/2008 2. Date of lodging FIR 25. 09. 2008 3. Concerned Police Station Asind 4. District Bhilwara 5. Offences alleged in the FIR Section 395/342 of the IPC 6.
Offences added, if any Section 365 of the IPC 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and false allegations have been levelled against him. He further submits that though the FIR was registered in the year 2008, however, the investigation under [2026:RJ-JP:36716] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5876/2026] Section 173(8) of the Cr. P. C. against the present petitioner remained pending and he was subsequently arrested. 2. 1 Learned counsel further submits that the articles alleged to have been robbed have already been recovered and no recovery has been made from the possession of the present petitioner.
He contends that the co-accused persons namely Khajan Singh, Vikram Singh, Manohar Singh S/o Makkan Singh, Santosh Singh, Thakur Jarnail Singh, Babu Singh @ Kalu Singh and Satyanarayan @ Satu and Pema @ Premchand have already been granted bail and the role assigned to the present petitioner in the present crime is not distinguishable from the roles assigned to the co-accused persons. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 15. 04. 2026 and the trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, he deserves to be enlarged on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes this bail application, however, is not in a position to distinguish the role assigned to the present petitioner from the role of co-accused persons. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 5.
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of this case and after perusing of the challan papers so also considering the fact that the articles alleged to have been robbed have already been recovered and no recovery has been made from the present petitioner; the co-accused persons have already been granted bail by this Court and the role assigned to the present petitioner in the present crime is not distinguishable from the roles assigned to co-accused persons; and that the [2026:RJ-JP:36716] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5876/2026] prosecution has not expressed any apprehension qua the petitioner fleeing away from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail, in the considered opinion of this Court, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period as the trial will take sufficiently long time.
Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted. 6. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that petitioner- Manohar Singh Alias Manu, shall be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR; provided he executes personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs. 25,000/-each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial. 7. 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. (SUNIL BENIWAL),J Ashutosh-14
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.