Rajasthan High Court
CRLMB/1767/2026 of SHAUKEEN S/O SHRI HAMIDA Vs THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 13 February 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1767/2026 Shaukeen S/o Shri Hamida, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Bhori, Police Station Pahari, District Deeg, Rajasthan. (Presently Confined At District Jail, Deeg). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1767/2026
Shaukeen S/o Shri Hamida, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Bhori, Police Station Pahari, District Deeg, Rajasthan. (Presently Confined At District Jail, Deeg).
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Bal Ram Vashishtha
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP
Mr. Liyakat Khan for Complainant
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
13/02/2026
1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No.294/2025 registered at Police Station Pahari, District Deeg, for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 109(1) B.N.S.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner, who is an innocent person, has been falsely implicated in this case and he has nothing to do with the alleged offences. Learned counsel further submits that the complainant and the petitioner are real brothers, and the dispute between them arose on account of a quarrel between their children. Learned counsel contends that out of the injuries sustained by the injured person, one has been opined to be grievous in nature and the remaining two are simple; however, none of the injuries is dangerous to life. Learned counsel further submits that both the parties have
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-1767/2026] amicably settled their dispute by way of compromise and now, there remains no controversy between the parties. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is in custody since long time and charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter. Learned counsel further submits that the trial will considerably take long time in its conclusion, so no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody, therefore, the benefit of bail under Section 483 B.N.S.S. may be granted to the accused- petitioner.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner hereinabove.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant confirms the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties and submits that the complainant has no objection if the petitioner is enlarged on bail.
5. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, the fact that charge-sheet has already been filed; compromise has been arrived at between the parties and none of the injuries sustained by the injured person is dangerous to life, thus, without commenting anything on the merits / demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
6. Therefore, the bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and the accused-petitioner, namely Shaukeen S/o Shri Hamida, is ordered to be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-1767/2026] Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, with the stipulation that the petitioner shall appear before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when he is called upon to do so. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J SAHIL SONI /42