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) 982

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR, J
MANOJ S/O SHRI DHUARAM – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 384 / 2025



Advocates:
Mr. R.R. Balsa, Adv., Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP, Mr. Dushyant Jain, Adv.

The court granted bail to the accused-petitioners due to non-specific allegations and their prolonged custody, emphasizing the need for just treatment in the bail process.

Headnote:(A) B.N.S.S. - Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), and 109(1) - Bail application filed under Section 483 - Accused-petitioners arrested in connection with FIR No.663/2024 - Allegations of false implication and non-specific nature of charges raised - Cross FIR lodged by accused-petitioners against complainant-party - Injuries sustained by complainant-party were not dangerous to life - Accused-petitioners in custody since 19.12.2024, with trial expected to take considerable time. (Paras 1, 2, 5)

(B) Bail - Considerations for granting bail include duration of custody and nature of allegations - Main allegations of firearm use attributed to co-accused, not petitioners - Court deems it just to grant bail considering the circumstances. (Paras 5, 6)

Facts of the case:
The accused-petitioners were arrested for alleged involvement in an incident where injuries were caused to the complainant-party, with claims of firearm use against a co-accused. (Para 2)

Findings of Court:
The court found it appropriate to grant bail to the accused-petitioners due to the nature of allegations and their duration of custody. (Para 5)

Issues: The main issues addressed include the specificity of allegations against the accused-petitioners and the appropriateness of granting bail considering the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the main allegations of firearm use were against a co-accused, and the accused-petitioners had been in custody for an extended period, warranting the granting of bail. (Para 5)

Result: Bail application allowed.

Order :

1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. on behalf of accused-petitioners. The accused- petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.663/2024, registered at Police Station Kotwali Dholpur, District Dholpur, for the offence(s) under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2) and 109(1) of B.N.S.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the accused- petitioners have falsely been implicated for the offences under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2) and 109(1) of B.N.S. read with Section 3/25-A of the Arms Act. It is argued that the allegations against the accused-petitioners are omnibus in nature and not specific. The accused-petitioner-party also lodged a cross FIR against the complainant-party and the persons of accused- petitioner-party also sustained injures. The allegation of using firearm is against the other co-accused Manvendra and not against the present accused-petitioners. The accused-petitioners are in custody since 19.12.2024, investigation/trial of the case may take considerable time. None of the injured sustained any injury which was found to be dangerous to life, the injuries were found to be simple blunt in nature, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioners may be allowed.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant have vehemently opposed the grant of bail application. It is contended that the present accused-petitioners along with the other co-accused Manvendra caused injuries to the complainant-party and as result of it, 5 persons of complainant-party sustained injuries and firearm was also been used. Therefore, considering the grave allegations against the accused-petitioners, the bail application may be dismissed.

4. Heard and perused the material available on the record.

5. It is not desirable to express anything on the merits of the case and considering the fact that the main allegations of using firearms is against the other co-accused Manvendra, the accused- petitioners are in custody since 19.12.2024 and trial of the case may take considerable time, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail.

6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners- 1. Manoj S/o Shri Dhuaram and 2. Ghanshyam S/o Shri Ramjilal, in connection with FIR No.663/2024, registered at Police Station Kotwali Dholpur, District Dholpur, shall be enlarged on bail provided both of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

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