SAMEER ADIWAL 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. SAMEER ADIWAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2026:RJ-JP:37745] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7131/2026 CNR: RJHC010540542026 | URN: CRLMB / 15757U / 2026 Sameer Adiwal S/o Dinesh Adiwal, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Indra Colony, Mount Abu, P. s. Mount Abu, Dist. Sirohi, Raj (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail Sirohi) Date Of Arrest 18-03-2026 ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Barasa Mr. Naresh Charniya Mr. Bhatraj For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL Order 07/08/2026 1. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that notice issued to respondent No. 2 has been served. 2. Service report dated 17. 07. 2026 is taken on record. 3. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an appeal under Section 14-A(2) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at the instance of accused-appellant. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S.
No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 31/2026 2. Concerned Police Station Mount Abu 3. District Sirohi 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 191(2)(3), 109(1), [2026:RJ-JP:37745] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-7131/2026] 103(1) & 115(2) of BNS, 2023, Section 4/25 Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 3(2) (v)(va) of SC/ST Act, 1989 5. Offences added, if any - 6. Date of passing of impugned 02. 07. 2026 order 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-appellant and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. 4. 1 He further submits that appellant is in judicial custody since 18. 03. 2026. He further submits that merely on the basis of suspicion, the appellant has been made accused whereas he was not involved in the crime in question. 4.
2 Based on these submissions, it is argued that the appellant, who is presently in judicial custody, is entitled to be enlarged on bail as the trial will take sufficiently long time to conclude. 5. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the appeal and submits that the appellant is named in the FIR and injured witness-Harsh has specifically levelled allegation of being inflicted by sword which is attributed to the appellant. The presence of the appellant is also seen in the CCTV footage. [2026:RJ-JP:37745] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-7131/2026] Considering the above submissions, the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail. 6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 7.
Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties; the facts and circumstances of the case; the challan papers and considering the fact that the appellant is named in the FIR and injured witness-Harsh has specifically levelled allegation of inflicting sword injury against the appellant and that the presence of the appellant is also seen in the CCTV footage, without further commenting on merits / demerits of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail at this stage. 8. Accordingly, the present criminal appeal is dismissed. 9. However, the appellant would be at liberty to file afresh after the statement of injured witnesses are recorded. (SUNIL BENIWAL),J 63/Amar Purohit
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.