Rajasthan High Court
CRLMB/3651/2026 of VIKRAM SAINI S/O SHRI BABULAL SAINI Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 6 May 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd (Interim) Bail Application No. 3651/2026 Vikram Saini S/o Shri Babulal Saini, aged about 25 Years, R/o Geejgarh, Police Station Sikandra, District Dausa (Rajasthan) (Presently lodged in District Jail, Jhalawar).
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd (Interim) Bail Application No. 3651/2026
Vikram Saini S/o Shri Babulal Saini, aged about 25 Years, R/o Geejgarh, Police Station Sikandra, District Dausa (Rajasthan)
(Presently lodged in District Jail, Jhalawar).
----Petitioner/Accused
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Karan Singh
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA
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.
Order
06/05/2026
1. This third interim bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 BNSS, in connection with FIR No. 10/2025 registered at Cyber Police Station (Jhalawar), Distt. Jhalawar, for the offence under Sections 316(2), 316(5), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 61(2), 111(2)(ii), 114(4) BNS and Sections 66(C), 66(D) IT Act, against the order dated 04.02.2026 whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Jhalawar rejected the application of the petitioner for the interim bail.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner’s son Riyansh Saini aged about 2 years 9 months is suffering from Spastic Cerebral Palsy with Dystonia due to which he is not able to sit without any support and he is undergoing regular treatment including regular intensive physical therapy. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is also
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-3651/2026] having a girl child of eight months and therefore it is difficult for his wife to take care of both the children and also to make arrangements for the treatment of his son. Learned counsel also submitted that relatives of the petitioner are residing at Dausa due to which his wife is unable to get any help from them, and the presence of petitioner is required at home not only to provide proper treatment to his son but also to make financial arrangements for his family, and therefore, prays that the petitioner may be granted interim bail for a period of three months.
3. This Court, vide order dated 30.04.2026, had directed the learned Public Prosecutor to verify the factum of the medical condition of the petitioner’s child as well as details of other family members.
4. In compliance of the said order, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a report dated 04.05.2026 issued by the office of Dy. Superintendent of Police, Cyber Police Station, Jhalawar, District Jhalawar (Raj.), which shows that the documents received from the wife of petitioner, relating to the illness of the petitioner’s son, were sent to the Medical Board at SRG Hospital, Jhalawar. The Medical Board, based upon these documents, verified the factum of child suffering from Spastic Cerebral Palsy with Dystonia. The Board also noted that in the documents there is no mention of need of surgery for the said disease.
5. The report so submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor also discloses the fact that the petitioner has a joint family consisting of his wife Anju Saini, mother Ramvati Devi, brother
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-3651/2026] Gopal Saini and sister in law Sanju Saini and all these persons take care of the health of the petitioner’s son.
6. In view of the above, it is clear that there is no need of any urgent medical assistance to the petitioner’s son and apart from his wife there are other members in his family to look after the petitioner's son, hence, no case of interim bail is made out.
7. Accordingly, the application filed by the petitioner for interim bail is dismissed. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J SKS/6