CRLMB/10712/2026 of RAJVEER S/O PRAHLAD Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 31 August 2026

Order

31/08/2026

1. The instant bail application has been filed by the petitioner Rajveer S/o Prahlad, who was arrested by the police in connection with FIR No. 276/2025 dated 03.11.2025 registered at Police Station Pahari, District Deeg for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 190, 115(2), 126(2), 103(1), 351(2), 352 and 125 of BNS, 2023.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is behind the bars since 07.11.2025. He further submits that police after conducting investigation has already filed the charge sheet on 01.02.2026. He further informed this Court that the co- accused persons namely Kehari and Ghanshyam have already been enlarged on bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. He fairly admits that as far as three accused persons namely Natthi, Jawahar and Kapil Dev are concerned, their bail application came

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-10712/2026] to be rejected by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.05.2026 on account of the fact that there were allegations against them and their names were also mentioned in the FIR as well as in the statement of the injured person. He further submitted that as far as the petitioner herein is concerned, his name is not mentioned in the FIR as well as in the statement of the witness Pradeep, one of the injured and Sohan whose statement was recorded on 06.11.2025 and 05.11.2025. He further submits that without any basis, one of the witnesses namely Nanak named the petitioner without his presence in photographs as well as in CCTV footage. He further submitted that there are serious contradictions in the story of the prosecution, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail by maintaining parity with co-accused persons namely Kehari and Ghanshyam, who have already been enlarged on bail by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.04.2026. In view of the above, learned counsel prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor along with learned counsel appearing for the complainant strongly opposed the bail application by stating that the petitioner was also involved in the alleged offence in which one Chandan Singh died and one Pradeep Singh sustained certain injuries.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the FIR as well as charge-sheet filed by the Investigating Officer.

5. This Court noted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR. As far as the statements of the witnesses Sohan, Pradeep and Nanak are concerned, out of which two witnesses, one was injured

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-10712/2026] namely Pradeep has not named the present petitioner herein, however only one of the witnesses, Nanak, named him which does not appears to be factually correct. In view of the above, by maintaining parity with the co-persons namely Kehari and Ghanshyam, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

6. Accordingly, the instant bail application filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Rajveer S/o Prahlad shall be released on bail, provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court for his appearance before that Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial. The petitioner is further directed not to take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty. It is made clear that the observation as made by this Court in the bail application will not affect the trial of the case. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J 69/RAHUL KUMAR