Dismissed

Rajesh Gurjar S/O Ramkishan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Nov 2025CRLMB/10291/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the petitioner, accused in firearms discharge case with serious antecedents, did not present a fit case for bail. The Court dismissed the second bail application, noting evidence of petitioner's presence at the scene and gravity of charges despite applicant's claim of innocence.

What did the court decide?

Application for bail dismissed; petitioner to remain in custody.

Rajesh Gurjar S/O Ramkishan Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheque Dishonour | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:44222]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 10291/2025

¶4

Rajesh Gurjar S/o Ramkishan, R/o Dhamla Ka Bas, Tan Hajipur, District Kotputli - Behrod, (Raj.) (At Present The Accused Petitioner Is In Judicial Custody In Sub Jail Behrod)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl.GC. For Complainant(s) : Pt. Shri Ram Sharma

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

¶11

Order

¶12

04/11/2025

¶13

The instant criminal miscellaneous 2^nd bail application has been filed under Section 483 Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) on behalf of the accused-petitioner. The accusedpetitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.16/2025 dated 12.02.2025 registered at Police Station Basdayal, District Kotputli - Behror, for offences under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), read with Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. Upon completion of the investigation, the offences have been found to be under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of the BNS, read with Section 5/27 of the Arms Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the criminal miscellaneous 1^st bail application filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file a fresh application

(2 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:44222]

[CRLMB-10291/2025]

after recording the statement of the injured witness, Heeralal Gurjar (PW-1) vide order dated 30.05.2025 passed by this Court . 3. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner further submits that the said injured witness, Heeralal Gurjar (PW-1), was examined on 17.07.2025, therefore the present criminal miscellaneous 2^nd bail application has been filed. He further submits that the petitioner is an innocent person who has been falsely implicated in this case; has been in judicial custody since 26.03.2025; and there is no specific allegation of causing firearm injury against him.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that there are material contradictions in the statement of the injured witness, Heeralal Gurjar (PW-1); the trial of the case will take considerable time; and the custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. Accordingly, he prays that the petitioner may kindly be released on bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and that the present second criminal miscellaneous bail application may kindly be allowed.

¶20

Per contra , learned Additional Government Counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed this 2^nd bail application.

¶21

Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶22

From a bare perusal of the record, it is revealed that the accused-petitioner was driving the motorcycle, while the main

[CRLMB-10291/2025]

[2025:RJ-JP:44222]

(3 of 4)

accused, Kalu Bilali, fired upon the injured person, Heeralal Gurjar, who was returning back after attending the Court hearing in another criminal case. The presence of the accused-petitioner at the scene has been captured in CCTV footage obtained from cameras installed at the house of Gajanand Singh Rajput. Furthermore, the injured witness, Heeralal Gurjar (PW-1), in his statement, has identified the petitioner, indicating that the petitioner played a vital role in commission of the alleged offence and the petitioner is a close relative of main accused Kalu Bilali.

¶27

As regards the antecedents of the petitioner, three (3) other criminal cases are pending against him. As per the record, details of those cases are as follows:

¶28

“1. FIR No. 292/2017 dated 10.06.2017 for offences under Sections 3/25 and 5/25 of the Arms Act, resulting in charge-sheet No. 348/2017 dated 05.08.2017, registered at Police Station Bansoor.

¶29

2. FIR No. 232/2017 dated 14.05.2017 for offences under Section 395 of the IPC, resulting in charge-sheet No. 359/2017 dated 24.08.2017, registered at Police Station Bansoor.

¶30

3. FIR No. 616/2020 dated 25.10.2020 for offences under Sections 143, 341, 307, 327, 427, and 506 of the IPC, and Sections 3/25 of the Arms Act, resulting in charge-sheet No. 1/2021 dated 02.01.2021, registered at Police Station Bansoor.”

¶31

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, as also the fact that the petitioner’s presence being reflected in the CCTV footage, his criminal antecedents, and looking to the gravity and nature of the

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:44222]

[CRLMB-10291/2025]

allegations leveled against him, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the accused-petitioner.

¶36

Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous 2^nd bail application of the accused-petitioner is hereby dismissed.

¶37

The observations made hereinabove is only for the decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.

¶38

(MANEESH SHARMA),J

¶39

Seema/1

Rajesh Gurjar S/O Ramkishan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Gurjar S/O Ramkishan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijendra Singh S/O Sh. Bachchan Singh, Vs Babulal S/O Sh. Chandgiram

Gopal Gurjar S/O Late Shri Nanu Ram Gurjar Vs Kanhaiya Lal S/O Shri Narain

Hardeep Singh S/O Late Shri Kartar Singh Ramgadiya Vs Lakhvinder Singh S/O Late Shri Kartar Singh Ramgadiya

Rajender Kumar Babel S/O Late Shri Manakchand Ji Babel Vs M/S Sarraf Infrastructures Partnership Firm

Sitaram Sharma S/O Shri Babulal Vs Kajodmal Sharma S/O Shri Rameshwar

Manoj Sharma S/O Shri Babulal Vs Kajodmal Sharma S/O Shri Rameshwar