Rajasthan High Court
CRLMB/11960/2026 of DEEPAK @ DEEPU S/O UDHARAM Vs THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 7 August 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11960/2026 CNR: RJHC020714212026 | URN: CRLMB / 22024U / 2026 Deepak @ Deepu S/o Udharam, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Ramsar Balayaan Dhosalla, Police Station Bewar Sadar, District Beawar ( Presently Confined
[2026:RJ-JP:31095]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11960/2026
CNR: RJHC020714212026 | URN: CRLMB / 22024U / 2026
Deepak @ Deepu S/o Udharam, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Ramsar Balayaan Dhosalla, Police Station Bewar Sadar, District Beawar ( Presently Confined In Central Beawar)
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Anish Bhadala
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Judgment / Order
07/08/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 05.05.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 2 Beawar District Beawar, in Bail Application No.39/2026, whereby the bail application of the petitioner was rejected in connection with F.I.R. No.187/2019, Police Station Masooda, District Ajmer for the offences under Sections 458, 342 & 395 of the IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of bail jump. The petitioner had already been enlarged on bail in the present F.I.R. However, he subsequently failed to appear before the Court, as a result of which his bail bonds were forfeited, and he was taken into custody. Learned counsel for the petitioner however, prays that the petitioner may kindly be enlarged on bail.
[2026:RJ-JP:31095] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-11960/2026]
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that the trial proceedings have completed. He also submits that as many as eight criminal cases are reported to be pending against the petitioner. He further submits that, after obtaining the benefit of bail, the petitioner committed another offence, in connection with which he was arrested. Thereafter, he was brought into custody in the present case on a production warrant. He, therefore, prays that the bail application be rejected.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
6. Without commenting on the merits and demerits of the case, and considering the fact that, after availing the benefit of bail in the present F.I.R., the petitioner allegedly committed another offence, in connection with which he was arrested, and was thereafter brought into custody in the present case on a production warrant, this Court is of the view that the petitioner not only misused the concession of bail but also failed to surrender before the trial Court. It was only after his arrest in the subsequent F.I.R. that he was produced before the Court in the present case on a production warrant further as stated that trial is almost complete. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
7. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application stands dismissed. (BIPIN GUPTA),J 91/KRATIKA