Rajasthan High Court
CRLMB/2661/2026 of PAWAN S/O TANAJ Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 16 April 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2661/2026 Pawan S/o Tanaj, R/o Ward No. 01, Pacheri Kalan, District Jhunjhunu, Raj. (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Behror). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For
[2026:RJ-JP:16062]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2661/2026
Pawan S/o Tanaj, R/o Ward No. 01, Pacheri Kalan, District Jhunjhunu, Raj. (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Behror).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Rajendra Singh Raghav with
Mr. Prakrity Kumar
Mr. Virendra Singh
Mr. Ankur Singh Tomar
For Respondent(s)
:
Ms. Arti Sharma, Public Prosecutor
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. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No.155/2025 registered at Police Station Shahajahanpur, District Kotputli-Behror for the offences under Sections 103(1), 140(1), 238(a), 310(3), 111(2)(l), 318(2), 318(4), 189(2) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner is running a mobile repairing shop and at one point of time some persons came to him for getting unlock a cell phone manufactured by Apple Company. He further submits that apart from unlocking the cell phone, there is no other act of the petitioner so as to connect him with the alleged offence. He further submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 01.11.2025 and the Police after completion of investigation has already submitted charge-sheet in the matter. He also submits
[2026:RJ-JP:16062] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-2661/2026] that trial of the case will take considerable time. Therefore, the accused-petitioner may be released on bail.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application.
4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material made available on record.
5. As per the evidence collected during investigation, the allegation against the accused-petitioner is of unlocking the cell phone of the deceased-Ashok. There is no evidence on record whether any amount was transferred to the account of the accused-petitioner through UPI from the cell phone of the deceased.
6. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case and so also the allegations against the accused-petitioner who is in custody since 01.11.2025, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner named above shall be enlarged on bail provided, he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- together with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /58