SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(RAJ) 55

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Mr. Justice Kuldeep Mathur, J
SUNIL KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 1810 / 2025



Advocates:
Mr. Amit Pareek, Mr. Prem Singh Panwar, PP

The court granted bail based on the non-life-threatening nature of the injuries and the completion of the investigation, emphasizing the importance of trial duration in bail considerations.

Headnote:(A) BNS Act - Sections 331(6), 115(2), and 189(2) - Bail application - Petitioner arrested for grievous but non-life-threatening injuries - Petitioner claimed false implication and lack of motive - Judicial custody since 10.12.2024; investigation completed - Court granted bail considering trial duration. (Paras 1-7)

(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail include nature of charges, duration of custody, and completion of investigation - Court must avoid prejudicing trial court's findings. (Paras 6-8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.291/2024 for causing grievous injuries, alleged to have occurred on 21.10.2024, and claimed to have been falsely implicated.

Findings of Court:
The court found it appropriate to grant bail due to the nature of the injuries, the duration of custody, and the completion of investigation.

Issues: The main issues addressed were the nature of the injuries and the petitioner’s claim of false implication.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that while the injuries were grievous, they were not dangerous to life, and the completion of the investigation warranted bail.

Result: Bail application allowed.

ORDER :

KULDEEP MATHUR, J.

1.This application for bail under Section 483 of BNS S has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.291/2024 registered at Police Station Rajiyasar, District Sri Ganganagar, for offences under Sections 331(6), 115(2) and 189(2) of BNS .

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Drawing attention of the Court towards the challan papers, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had no motive to commit the alleged crime. Learned counsel submitted that the incident took place in the heat of the moment. Learned counsel further contended that in the alleged incident, which took place on 21.10.2024, the injuries alleged to have been caused by the petitioner upon the injured persons are though grievous in nature but the same are not dangerous to life.

4. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 10.12.2024; investigation against the petitioner has already been completed and the trial of the case is likely to consume sufficiently long time. On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. However, he was not in position to refute the fact that the injuries alleged to have been caused by the petitioner upon the injured persons in the alleged incident, which occurred on 21.10.2024, are though grievous in nature but the same are not dangerous to life.

6. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

7. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Kishan Singh arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.291/2024 registered at Police Station Rajiyasar, District Sri Ganganagar, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.

8. 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.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top