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) 15075

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
MOHANLAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 5589 / 2026



##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:22958]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5589/2026

Mohanlal S/o Shri Girdhari, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of

Pichkarai Tal, Police Station Bhanipura, District Churu Raj.

(Presently District Jail Churu)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharwan Choudhary

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

13/05/2026

1. The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is

filed by the applicant-accused Mohanlal S/o Shri Girdhari

seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR

No.41/2026 dated 26.03.2026 registered at Police Station

Bhanipura, District Churu, for the offence under Sections 333,

115(2), 126(2), 326(a), 307 & 324(2) BNS.

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. He further submits that there are no chance of

fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble

Court. He also submits that the applicant undertakes not to repeat

offence and cooperate with trial, which will take time.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is

having a family dispute and due to the family reasons a false case

(Uploaded on 15/05/2026 at 02:30:17 PM)

(Downloaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:21:28 AM)

##PAGE2##

[2026:RJ-JD:22958] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5589/2026]

has been registered against him. He further submits that the

petitioner was arrested on 28.03.2026 and since then he is in

custody. He also submits that some of the cases registered against

him has already been disposed of and petitioner undertake note to

repeat offence.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail

application and submitted that the allegations are grave and

serious in nature. He submitted that petitioner is a habitual

criminal and having 17 criminal cases.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned

Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both

the parties.

6. On basis of a report registered by father of petitioner-

accused about assault on his younger daughter-in-law, a report

has registered at concerned police station Bhanipura and matter is

investigated. The present petitioner was arrested and now he is in

custody.

7. The order of the trial Court indicate that 17 criminal cases

were registered against the petitioner and out of which 4 have

been disposed but remaining are pending. The registration of

criminal cases indicate criminal background of the petitioner.

8. In case of Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P AIR 2015 SC

3703 and further in case of State of State of Karnataka vs. Sri

Darshan Etc. 2025 INSC 979 Hon’ble Supreme Court has

considered criminal antecedents of accused as an important factor

in consideration of bail. In case of Brijmani Devi v. Pappu

Kumar (2022) 4 SCC 497, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held

that while deciding a bail application, the Court must exercise its

(Uploaded on 15/05/2026 at 02:30:17 PM)

(Downloaded on 19/05/2026 at 02:21:28 AM)

##PAGE3##

[2026:RJ-JD:22958] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5589/2026]

discretion in a judicious manner and provide reasons for its

conclusion. Due consideration must be given to the nature and

gravity of the crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused, and

the severity of the punishment prescribed for the alleged offence,

alongside the risk of witness tampering or the accused

absconding.

9. Here in this case, 17 criminal cases are registered against

the petitioner since 2010 and every year n number of cases of

identical nature are registered. In the instant case, the petitioner

has been charged for serious offences, therefore, considering the

allegations against the petitioner and criminal background, I am of

the considered view that this is not a fit case to enlarge the

petitioner-accused on bail.

10. Accordingly, the application for bail filed under Section 483 of

BNSS

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