Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
RAVI CHIRANIA
Vikram Singh, S/o Raghuveer Singh Chouhan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp – Respondent
ORDER :
RAVI CHIRANIA, J.
[1]- S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.9497/2025 (Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan) :
1. The instant bail application under Section 43 B.N.S.S. has been filed by accused-applicant Kuldeep Singh S/o. Parwat Singh, in connection with FIR No.232/2025 registered at P.S. Kotwali Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh for the offence under Sections 103 (1), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 333, 61(2)¼d½, 326 ¼,Q½ 324(5), 115(2), 249d, 111 (2)(1), 111(5), 238 BNS and Section 3 /25, 4/25 Arms Act, against the bail rejection order dated 01.7.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Chittorgarh in Criminal Misc. Case No.155/2025, whereby the bail application filed by the accused-petitioner was rejected.
2. Learned counsel Mr. Shreedhar Purohit submitted that the police after conducting investigation has filed charge-sheet in the matter, thus, prayed that the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner may kindly be heard as no investigation is not pending qua the petitioner.
3. The brief facts as has come out from the arguments advanced by learned counsel Mr. Shreedhar Purohit is that complainant Om Prakash Sharma lodged the impugned FIR on 01.6.2025 stating there
Bail is warranted for bailable offenses when prior serious allegations are cleared, and investigations are complete, focusing on the nature of involvement rather than just the charges.
The court determined the necessity for bail based on the absence of direct allegations against certain petitioners, while evidence of serious involvement warranted denial for another.
Insufficient prima facie evidence to link the applicant to organized crime syndicate warrants bail under MCOCA's stringent conditions.
Though accused has right to make successive applications for grant of bail, court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider reasons and grounds on which earlier bail appli....
Larger mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and dictum of Apex Court in Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P. and another, reported in (2018) 3 SCC 22 have been taken into account to make a c....
The heinousness of the offense, evidence available on record, and the accused-applicants' criminal history were central to the court's decision in rejecting the bail applications.
The court ruled that the applicant, as the prime accused in serious offences, cannot be granted bail due to the risk of trial tampering and his history of absconding, despite delays in the trial proc....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
