FAKIRA RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: SUNIL BENIWAL
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2026-08-07. FAKIRA RAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2026:RJ-JP:37848] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 2523/2025 CNR: RJHC010794762025 | URN: CRLAS / 5414U / 2025 Fakira Ram S/o Shri Utama Ram, Aged About 49 Years, Village Khuiyala District Jaisalmer Raj ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecuter 2. More Khan S/o Sumar Khan, Khuiyala Ps Ramgarh District Jaisalmer 3. Jusab Khan S/o More Khan, Khuiyala Ps Ramgarh District Jaisalmer ----Respondents Connected With S. B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1428/2025 CNR: RJHC010552452025 | URN: CRLAS / 3167U / 2025 Fakira Ram S/o Sh. Utama Ram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village Khuiyala, Dist. Jaisalmer (Raj. ). ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Sawan Khan S/o More Khan, R/o Khuiyala, P. s. Ramgarh, District Jaisalmer 3. Kalindra Khan @ Kalandar Khan S/o Resham Khan, R/o Kayam Khan Ki Dhani, Khuiyala, P. s. Ramgarh, District Jaisalmer ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr.
Kastubh Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL Order 07/08/2026 1. The present criminal appeals have been filed by the appellant seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondents More Khan, [2026:RJ-JP:37848] (2 of 2) [CRLAS-2523/2025] Jusab Khan, Sawan Khan and Kalindra Khan vide respective orders dated 13. 08. 2025 and 06. 06. 2025 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act cases, Jaisalmer. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that considering the nature of injuries inflicted, the learned trial Court committed a serious error in extending the benefit of bail to the accused namely More Khan, Jusab Khan, Sawan Khan and Kalindra Khan. 2. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that though injuries are reported to be simple in nature but looking to the manner in which the respondents attacked the complainant they were not entitled to be enlarged on bail. 3.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Considering the fact that the injuries inflicted to the complainant are reported to be simple in nature so also considering the fact that the accused respondents were enlarged on bail on 13. 08. 2025 and 06. 06. 2025 and there is no allegation against them for mis-using or violation of conditions of bail, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present application seeking cancellation of bail and the same is accordingly, dismissed. (SUNIL BENIWAL),J 90-91-/Abhishek kushwaha
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.