CRLMB/12068/2026 of KHUSHIRAM SON OF PRABHU Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 12 August 2026

1. Khushiram Son Of Prabhu, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Bagariyon Ki Dhani Tan Soda, P.s. Diggi, District Tonk (Raj.) ( Accused Petitioners Presently Confined In Sub Jail Malpura, District Tonk)

2. Hansraj Son Of Mahaveer, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Bagariyon Ki Dhani Tan Soda, P.s. Diggi, District Tonk (Raj.) ( Accused Petitioners Presently Confined In Sub Jail Malpura, District Tonk) ----Accused-Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G K Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Gupta, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 12/08/2026

1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 28.07.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Malpura, District Tonk (Rajasthan), in Bail Application No.133/2026, whereby the bail application of the petitioner was rejected in connection with F.I.R. No.78/2026, Police Station Diggi, District Tonk for the offences under Sections 121(1), 132, 303(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not driving the vehicle which overturned, and

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-12068/2026] resulted into injuries to one Shankarlal, and even the driver of the vehicle was one Navratan Dagariya. He further submits that the petitioners have not been named in the F.I.R. and have been falsely implicated therein. He further submits that there is a delay of one day in lodging the F.I.R. as the incident of the vehicle overturning took place on 05.05.2026, which resulted into causing of injuries to Shankarlal, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 06.05.2026. Learned counsel further contends that the co- accused, Durgesh, has already been enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court and the case of the petitioners is on no lesser footing than that of the said co-accused. Therefore, the petitioners may also be enlarged on bail.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. Moreover, the conclusion of investigation/trial will take sufficiently long time and even the offences are triable by a Magistrate, therefore, he prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail as the accused is in custody since 19.07.2026.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

6. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and upon consideration of the submissions advanced, all the offences are triable by Magistrate; the conclusion of investigation/trial is likely to take a considerable time; the petitioners have not been named in the F.I.R.; co-accused Durgesh has already been enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court and the case of the

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-12068/2026] petitioner is no lessor footing then that of the co-accused; there are no criminal antecedents against the accused-petitioners of having committed any offence of similar nature or any other nature, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application deserves to be accepted.

7. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners namely - (i) Khushiram Son Of Prabhu and (ii) Hansraj Son Of Mahaveer arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.78/2026, Police Station Diggi, District Tonk, shall be released on bail; provided each of them furnish a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rs. One Lakh Only) with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) each, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so till the completion of the trial and with additional following conditions:

(i) The petitioners shall not leave country without the permission of the Court;

(ii) The petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected; and

(iii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (BIPIN GUPTA),J 83/KRATIKA