PRADEEP v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: SUNIL BENIWAL
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2026-08-10. PRADEEP v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5653/2026 CNR: RJHC010421492026 | URN: CRLMB / 12647U / 2026 Pradeep S/o Harish, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Bijuda Police Station Bichiwada District Dungarpur. (At Present Lodged In Dist. Jail Dungarpur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Ojha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL Order 10/08/2026 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 71/2025 2. Date of lodging FIR 06. 03. 2025 3. Concerned Police Station Bichiwara 4. District Dungarpur 5. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 309(4), 115(2), 126(2), 3(5) of BNS 6. Offences added, if any Sections 111(2)(3) and 13 of BNS 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. The petitioner has been made accused merely on the basis of statement of the co-accused persons and (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5653/2026] co-accused persons namely Pappu and Vijesh have already been enlarged on bail. He further submits that the investigation has been concluded and challan has been filed. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 01. 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. 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 so also considering the fact that the investigation has been concluded and challan has been filed; the petitioner is in judicial custody since 01. 04. 2026; the petitioner has been made accused merely on the basis of the statement of the co-accused Sunil; co-accused persons namely Pappu and Vijesh have already been enlarged on bail; and that the 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- Pradeep S/o Harish shall be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5653/2026] 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. It is directed that the petitioner shall appear before the concerned police station and mark his presence once every two months. He shall remain present at the concerned police station on the 15th day of every second month. 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-18
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.