RAHUL KUMAR 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. RAHUL KUMAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2026:RJ-JP:36987] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR nd S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 3367/2026 CNR: RJHC010258482026 | URN: CRLMB / 7734U / 2026 Rahul Kumar S/o Net Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Nimadi At Present Chandpole Bhinder District Udaipur. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Singh Rawal 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 149/2025 2. Date of lodging FIR 02. 10. 2025 3. Concerned Police Station Bhinder 4. District Udaipur 5. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the BNS 6.
Offences added, if any Sections 126(2), 115(2) and 118 (2) of the BNS 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first bail application was dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file afresh bail application after the statement of the injured was recorded. It [2026:RJ-JP:36987] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3367/2026] is submitted that the present bail application has been filed after recording of the statement of the injured. 2. 1 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 prosecution has alleged that the present petitioner inflicted multiple injuries upon the injured but the injury report reveals that only one injury was caused which has been opined to be grievous. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 04. 10. 2025 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 and after perusing the challan papers so also considering the fact that the statement of the injured has already been recorded as PW-2; the petitioner is in judicial custody since 04. 10. 2025; 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 [2026:RJ-JP:36987] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3367/2026] 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- Rahul Kumar S/o Net Ram 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-75
Source: High Court of Rajasthan. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.