Rajasthan High Court
CRLMB/1997/2026 of ARJUN S/O SHRI THANSINGH Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 27 February 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1997/2026 1. Arjun S/o Shri Thansingh, aged about 29 Years, 2. Gaurav S/o Shri Gautam, aged about 25 Years, All are R/o Kumharpura, Police Station Rajakhera, District Dholpur. (Both Accused Petitioners are
[2026:RJ-JP:9254]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1997/2026
1.
Arjun S/o Shri Thansingh, aged about 29 Years,
2.
Gaurav S/o Shri Gautam, aged about 25 Years, All are R/o Kumharpura, Police Station Rajakhera, District Dholpur.
(Both Accused Petitioners are in Judicial Custody In District Jail Dholpur).
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Sumit Kumar Jain with
Mr. Dhananjay Jain &
Ms. Diksha Meena
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP
Mr. Ankush Sharma
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
27/02/2026
1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioners under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with FIR No.02/2026 registered at Police Station Raja Khera, District Dholpur for offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 109(1), 3(5), 115(2), 126(2), 352 and 125 of BNS.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the accused- petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they have nothing to do with the alleged offences. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant and the petitioners have amicably resolved their disputes and a compromise has been arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel also submit that the petitioners have no criminal antecedent, they are in custody since long and no recovery is required to be made from them. He further submits that charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter and trial will take considerably long
[2026:RJ-JP:9254] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-1997/2026] time in its conclusion, so no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in custody, therefore, prays that petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application.
4. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant, does not dispute the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties and submits that the complainant has no objection, if petitioners are enlarged on bail.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, the fact that compromise has been arrived at between the parties, absence of criminal antecedents against the petitioners, charge- sheet has already been filed in the matter and trial will take considerably long time in its conclusion, without commenting anything upon the merits / demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
6. Therefore, this bail application is allowed and accused-petitioners namely Arjun S/o Shri Thansigh and Gaurav S/o Shri Gautam are ordered to be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, with the stipulation that the petitioners shall appear before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J TN/65