Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Urn: Crlmb / 189U / 2026Bajrang vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:26444) on 27 May, 2026

Author: Ashok Kumar Jain

Bench: Ashok Kumar Jain

 [2026:RJ-JD:26444]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
        S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 87/2026

  Bajrang S/o Vijay Singh, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of
  Gandibadi Tehsil Bhadra District Hanumangarh (Now Presently
  Lodged In Sub Dist. Bhadra)
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
  State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                     ----Respondent


  For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. V.K. Bhadu
  For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP


              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Date of conclusion of arguments                                 :     19/05/2026
Date on which the judgment was reserved :                             19/05/2026
Whether the full order or only the
operative part is pronounced                                    :     Full
                                                                      Judgment
Date of pronouncement                                           :      27/05/2026
                                    ORDER

1. The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Bajrang S/o Vijay Singh seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.53/2025 dated 09.03.2025 registered at P.S. Gogamedi, District-Hanumangarh, for the offence under Sections 103(1), 331(8), 115(2) of 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. The applicant does not (Uploaded on 29/05/2026 at 05:11:58 PM) (Downloaded on 30/05/2026 at 03:53:42 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:26444] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-87/2026] have any criminal antecedents. He also submits that the applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with trial, which will take time.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the contents of FIR lodged by complainant Sanjay has submitted that the report is registered against unknown assailant and it is a case of blind murder. He further submitted that not a single person is named or suspected for involvement in the incident. He also submitted that the police has collected certain footprints and searched several CCTV footages, but is not able to correlate any accused with the incident. He further referred that all of a sudden police has recorded a statement of Vinod Kumar Beniwal and on the basis of statement of Vinod Kumar has drawn the conclusion that present petitioner is involved in the incident. He further submitted that the statement of Vinod Kumar has been recorded as PW-3 and he has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. He also submitted that the incident is of 09.03.2025 and present petitioner was arrested on 18.04.2025. He also submitted that at the instance of present petitioner a knife was recovered and as per investigation the axe was used and not a knife, which means the axe was required to be recovered, but in the instant case a knife was recovered. He also submitted that present petitioner was falsely implicated only on the ground of suspicion to solve the case. He also referred the slow pace of trial and submitted that the petitioner is in custody since his arrest on 18.04.2025. He also referred judgment dated (Uploaded on 29/05/2026 at 05:11:58 PM) (Downloaded on 30/05/2026 at 03:53:42 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:26444] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-87/2026] 09.02.2026 and submitted that present petitioner was acquitted from a theft case.

4. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and he submitted that FSL report is available on record and which has corroborated the chance footprint which match with present petitioner.

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

6. The complainant Sanjay has lodged a report about blind murder of father of complainant in the intervening night of 08.03.2025 and 09.03.2025. As per complainant, axe was used in the incident. After registration of FIR, police has collected chance footprint and sent it to FSL. Also recorded statement of Vinod Kumar and Mukesh Kumar and drawn the conclusion that present petitioner was involved in the incident. After arrest of present petitioner, recovered a knife on 19.04.2025 from an open place. The charge sheet is filed against the petitioner under Section 103(1), 331(8) and 115(2) of BNS. The material indicates that Vinod Kumar who was examined as PW-3 has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.

7. The complainant is examined as PW-1 and in later part of his examination-in-chief, he has narrated certain incidents about present petitioner but he clearly admitted that on date of incident, present petitioner was masked. He could not identify him but now he can identify. The statement of PW-2 Vidhya were recorded by the trial court and in examination-

(Uploaded on 29/05/2026 at 05:11:58 PM) (Downloaded on 30/05/2026 at 03:53:42 AM) [2026:RJ-JD:26444] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-87/2026] in-chief, she has narrated certain incidents in relation to present petitioner. The discrepancies as referred by learned counsel for the petitioner requires consideration only at the time of final conclusion and not at the stage of bail. There are six criminal cases against the petitioner out of which one has already been disposed of on 09.02.2026 as the petitioner was acquitted. The entire material points out the involvement of present petitioner.

8. The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicant in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused on bail.

9. Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicant accused at this stage.

10. Accordingly, the application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Bajrang S/o Vijay Singh is hereby dismissed.

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU/16 (Uploaded on 29/05/2026 at 05:11:58 PM) (Downloaded on 30/05/2026 at 03:53:42 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)