Rajasthan High Court
CRLMB/545/2026 of PANSINGH @ PANA S/O JIVAN SINGH Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 12 February 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 545/2026 Pansingh @ Pana S/o Jivan Singh, R/o Village Atiraj Ka Pura, at present R/o Kushwah Basti, Parshuram Dahrmshalal Ke Pichhe, Badi, Police Station Badi, District Dholpur. (At Present Accused
[2026:RJ-JP:6649]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 545/2026
Pansingh @ Pana S/o Jivan Singh, R/o Village Atiraj Ka Pura, at present R/o Kushwah Basti, Parshuram Dahrmshalal Ke Pichhe, Badi, Police Station Badi, District Dholpur.
(At Present Accused Petitioner Confined in Sub Jail Badi District Dholpur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Amitabh Jatav with
Mr. Rajendra Singh Rajawat and
Ms. Preeti Kumari
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP
Ms. Riya Singh Chauhan
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
12/02/2026
1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No.307/2025 registered at Police Station Kanchanpur, District Dholpur for offence(s) under Section(s) 3(5), 352(2), 109(1) of B.N.S and Section 3/25 of Arms Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and has nothing to do with the alleged offences. Learned counsel further submits that the injuries inflicted on the injured person are simple in nature and the parties have already entered into compromise. He also submits that petitioner has no criminal antecedent; he is in
[2026:RJ-JP:6649] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-545/2026] custody since long and no recovery is required to be made from the petitioner, so no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him in custody, hence, he may be enlarged on bail.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application.
4. Learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute the factum of compromise arrived at between the parties and submits that complainant has no objection, if the accused is enlarged on bail.
5. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, the fact that parties have entered into compromise, injuries are simple in nature and conclusion of trial will take considerable long time, 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, this bail application is allowed and accused- petitioner Pansingh @ Pana S/o Jivan Singh is ordered to be released on bail, provided, he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- 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 called upon to do so. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J TN/22