ROHIT KEER 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. ROHIT KEER v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2026:RJ-JP:38146] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7327/2026 CNR: RJHC010531062026 | URN: CRLMB / 16120U / 2026 1. Rohit Keer S/o Ratanlal Keer, Aged About 26 Years, Residents Of Karni Mata Ka Kheda, Kumbhanagar, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. (Presently Lodged In District Jail, Chittorgarh) 2. Ramesh Keer S/o Kishanlal Keer, Aged About 22 Years, Residents Of Karni Mata Ka Kheda, Kumbhanagar, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan. (Presently Lodged In District Jail, Chittorgarh) ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Zeeshan Ali Mr. Aslam Khan 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 petitioners 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 157/2026 2. Date of lodging FIR 20. 04. 2026 3. Concerned Police Station Sadar Chittorgarh 4. District Chittorgarh 5. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 109(1), 115(2), 126(2) and 191(2) of BNS 6. Offences added, if any -- [2026:RJ-JP:38146] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-7327/2026] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and false allegations have been levelled against them. He further submits that though eight injuries are stated to have been inflicted upon the injured Rahul Sharma, injury Nos. 1 to 7 have been opined to be simple in nature, whereas injury No. 8 has been opined to be grievous in nature. 2. 1 While referring to injury report, learned counsel submits that though the said injury has been opined to be grievous in nature, however, the same is on account of dislocation of the shoulder. He further submits that the said injury was not caused by any weapon, but was sustained during a sudden fight.
The petitioners are in judicial custody since 01. 05. 2026 and the trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, they deserve to be enlarged on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes this bail application. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners 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 the challan papers so also considering the fact that injury Nos. 1 to 7 have been opined to be simple in nature, whereas injury No. 8 is on account of dislocation of the shoulder; the petitioners have been in judicial custody since 01. 05.
2026; and that the prosecution has not expressed any apprehension qua the petitioners fleeing away from justice, in case they are enlarged on bail, in the considered [2026:RJ-JP:38146] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-7327/2026] opinion of this Court, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners 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 petitioners deserves to be accepted. 6. Accordingly, the bail applications filed under Section 483 of BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that petitioners- Rohit Keer S/o Ratanlal Keer and Ramesh Keer S/o Kishanlal Keer, shall be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR; provided they execute personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.
25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for their 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-20
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.