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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 4001

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
YASHPAL S/O DEEPAK – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 347 / 2026



##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:3805]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 347/2026

1. Yashpal S/o Deepak, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Ghadi,

Post Bolni, Police Station Kasola, District Rewari, Haryana.

(At Present Confined In Sub Jail Kishangarh Bas District

Khairthal-Tijara).

2. Raman S/o Sanjay, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ghadi, Post

Bolni, Police Station Kasola, District Rewari, Haryana. (At

Present Confined In Sub Jail Kishangarh Bas District

Khairthal-Tijara).

----Petitioners

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sumer Singh Ola

For Respondent(s) : Mr.Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP

Mr.Chandra Shekhar

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

28/01/2026

1. The first bail application of the petitioners was allowed by

this Court vide order dated 23.08.2024 taking note of the fact that

the case of the petitioners was at par with the case of other co-

accused persons Sandeep and Om Prakash, to whom indulgence

of bail was already granted by this Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the

aforesaid order passed by this Court was assailed by the

complainant before the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of filing a

Criminal Appeal No.2573/2025 and the same was allowed vide

order dated 13.05.2025 and the order dated 23.08.2024 passed

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 02:32:34 PM)

(Downloaded on 15/02/2026 at 07:58:41 AM)

##PAGE2##

[2026:RJ-JP:3805] (2 of 9) [CRLMB-347/2026]

by this Court was quashed and set-aside and the petitioners were

directed to surrender themselves before the concerned

Authorities. Furthermore, directions were issued to the trial Court

to decide the matter on its merits, without being influenced by any

of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

3. Counsel submits that pursuant to the aforesaid order passed

by the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 13.05.2025, the petitioners

surrendered before the Jail Authorities and they are presently in

custody and subsequently thereto, charges have been framed

against the petitioners along-with co-accused persons for different

offences and statements of as many as seven prosecution

witnesses have been recorded so far. Counsel submits that upon

perusal of the statements of the complainant-PW-1 Ashish, PW-5

Vikas, who is the injured eye-witness and PW-6 Dinesh, it is clear

that there is no variation in their Court statements and the

allegations levelled in their statements against the petitioners are

similar, identical and consistent with the allegations levelled by

them in their Police statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

Counsel submits that the witness PW-7 Naveen Kumar has

improved his version during the course of trial and now, he has

levelled allegation of causing fire arm injury against the petitioners

along-with co-accused Vicky @ Kartoos. Counsel further submits

that the above mentioned three witnesses, except PW-7 Naveen

Kumar have not levelled any sort of allegation against the

petitioners and they have specifically alleged that the fire arm was

used by the main accused Vicky @ Kartoos which caused death of

the deceased. Counsel submits that there has been no recovery at

(Uploaded on 03/02/2026 at 02:32:34 PM)

(Downloaded on 15/02/2026 at 07:58:41 AM)

##PAGE3##

[2026:RJ-JP:3805] (3 of 9) [CRLMB-347/2026]

the instance of the petitioner-Raman and the recovery of seven

cartridges has been effected at the instance of the petitioner-

Yashpal from an open place, after a period of six months from the

alleged incident. Counsel submits that in spite of the above, no

charge under Sections 3/25 and 5/27 of the Arms Act has been

framed against the petitioner-Yashpal. Hence, under these

circumstances, there has been a change in the facts and

circumstances of the case and looking to the long period of

incarceration of the petitioners, indulgence of bail be granted to

the petitioners.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel

appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the arguments

raised by counsel for the petitioners and submits that the

petition

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