Rajasthan High Court
CRLMB/1827/2026 of MAHIPAL URF MP S/O BHOJRAJ Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 15 April 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1827/2026 Mahipal Urf Mp S/o Bhojraj, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Majra Rawat, Police Station Bansur, District Kotputali-Behrod. (Raj.) (At Present The Accused Petitioner Is In Judicial Custody District Jail
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.
Mahipal Urf Mp S/o Bhojraj, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Majra Rawat, Police Station Bansur, District Kotputali-Behrod. (Raj.) (At Present The Accused Petitioner Is In Judicial Custody District Jail Kotputali-Behrod).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Manish Gupta
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Sriram Dhaka, P.P.
Mr. Bharat Yadav,
Ms. Rekha Yadav
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
15/04/2026
1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No.
registered at Police Station Bansur, District Kotputli-Behror for offence under Sections 109(1), 324(4), 3(5) of BNS 2023 and under Section 5 and 27 of The Arms Act in F.I.R. and against the order dated 19.01.2026 whereby learned Trial Court dismissed the bail application filed by the accused-petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 324(4), 61(2)(a), 111(2)(b) and under Section 5/27 of the Arms Act.
2. Heard.
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-1827/2026]
3. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and counsel appearing for the complainant.
4. As per the contents of the First Information Report and so also the submission of the complainant Vinod Poswal recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS, the accused-petitioner is alleged to have come from inside the hotel and fired at the vehicle (Thar) in which the complainant was sitting. However, as per the description of the CCTV footage, the accused-petitioner is said to have on motorcycle who was tried to be run over by the Thar vehicle. The Court, prima facie, finds that there are material discrepancies between the version of the complainant and the description of the CCTV footage. The accused-petitioner is in custody since 28.12.2025.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that there are other criminal cases pending against the petitioner and some of them are punishable under the Arms Act which shows that the accused-petitioner is a habitual offender.
6. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly the fact that there is discrepancies in the statement of the complainant and the CCTV footage and no injury is sustained by the complainant party, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-1827/2026]
7. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided that he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only), together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court or any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
8. However, it is made clear that in case the accused- petitioner is found to be involved in any other criminal case of similar nature in future, the Police or the complainant party would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of this bail order. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J SHRUTI SHARMA /36