Rajasthan High Court
CRLMB/1075/2026 of PURUSHOTTAM S/O RAMNATH ADOPTED S/O JAGANNATH Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 16 April 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1075/2026 Purushottam S/o Ramnath Adopted S/o Jagannath, R/o Kotdi Patheda, Police Station Sadar Baran, District Baran (Raj.) (At Present Confined In District Jail Baran) ----Petitioner Versus State Of
[2026:RJ-JP:15796]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
1075/2026
Purushottam S/o Ramnath Adopted S/o Jagannath, R/o Kotdi Patheda, Police Station Sadar Baran, District Baran (Raj.) (At Present Confined In District Jail Baran)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Gajveer Singh Rajawat
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
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
16/04/2026
1. This instnat bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 BNSS in connection with FIR No. 529/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran for offences under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 3(5) of BNS 2023 against the order dated 12.01.2026 whereby learned Trial Court dismissed the bail application filed by the accused-petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 103(1), 111(2)(a), 61(2)(a).
2. Heard.
3. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also go through the investigation report.
4. The allegation against the accused-petitioner is that since he was having enmity with the complainant party because of certain litigations in between them and when the complainant
[2026:RJ-JP:15796] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-1075/2026] party was going to the Court for evidence in a case on a motorcycle, they were hit by a car in which co-accused were there who were hired by the petitioner. In the alleged incident two persons namely; Rukmani and Sanjay died.
5. It is not in dispute that certain litigations are pending in between the parties and there is an evidence that the complainant party was going to the Court at Baran and at the relevant time there was a car wherein the other family members of the accused- petitioner were there including the son of the petitioner. During the investigation, the Police has also come out with the fact that there was pre-meeting of the mind of the present accused- petitioner with the other co-accused for giving effect to this incident.
6. On perusal of the rejection order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Baran, it is also revealed that 23 other criminal cases are registered against the accused- petitioner though he is said to have been acquitted in various cases, but in one of the cases he has been convicted.
7. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record collected during investigation and previous conduct of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused- petitioner on bail.
8. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J SHRUTI SHARMA /9