[2026:RJ-JP:6338]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 1561/2026 Mohanlal @ Munna S/o Shri Shobharam, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Sanwalsar, Hemji Ka Tala, Police Station Baitu, District Balotara (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur)

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Vaishnavi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

10/02/2026

1. The second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Mohanlal @ Munna S/o Shri Shobharam seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No. 649/2024 dated 15.11.2024 registered at P.S. Jhotwara, District-Jaipur, for the offence under Sections 303(2), 313, 307, 111(2)(a) of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. She further submits that there is no chance of fleeing by applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. She also submits that the applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first bail application of the present petitioner was dismissed by this Hon’ble Court on 11.06.2025, and since then, no progress has been achieved in the trial. She further submitted that the co-accused, Fussaram, was granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 12.03.2025. She also referred to the judgment in the case of Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P. & Anr., reported as 2020 Cr.L.R (SC) 472, and submitted that pending cases or criminal antecedents are not grounds to dismiss bail.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties.

6. On 15.11.2024, the complainant Vishal Tiwari lodged a report against an unknown person for theft of his Scorpio vehicle during the night of 14.11.2024. On the basis of the report, FIR No. 649/2024 was registered at Police Station Jhotwara, District Jaipur (West), on 15.11.2024 under Section 303 of the BNS. During investigation, the police found the involvement of the present petitioner and Fussaram and filed a charge-sheet against them. A Coordinate Bench of this Court granted bail to Fussaram on 12.03.2025. The material on record indicates that there were seven cases relating to offences under Section 379 IPC or Section 303(2)(B) of the BNS against Fussaram. This Court dismissed the first bail application of the present petitioner on 11.06.2025. While dismissing the second bail application, the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3, Jaipur Metro-II referred to 27 registered criminal cases against the petitioner and observed that the petitioner is charged under Section 111(2)(B) of the BNS for organized crime. The material on record indicates that there were seven criminal cases against Fussaram, whereas there are

27 cases against the present petitioner.

7. In the case of Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of U.P.

(supra), Hon’ble the Supreme Court, while considering the provisions of Section 439 of the CrPC, observed that several cases pending against an accused are not, by themselves, a basis for refusal of bail.

8. In the case of Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508 Hon’ble the Supreme Court observed that a society expects responsibility and accountability from the member, and it desires that the citizens should obey the law, respecting it as a cherished social norm. No individual can make an attempt to create a concavity in the stem of social stream. It is impermissible.