Allowed

Prahlad Singh S/O Shri Hanuman Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Sept 2025CRLMB/11403/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fourth bail application under Section 483 BNSS arising from FIR for offences including Sections 147, 307 and 452 IPC. Court found the petitioner's case indistinguishable from co-accused Balveer Singh already enlarged on bail and granted bail on parity without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Accused released on bail on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs.50,000 each, subject to appearing before trial court.

Prahlad Singh S/O Shri Hanuman Singh Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:36656]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 4^th Bail Application No. 11403/2025

¶4

Prahlad Singh S/o Shri Hanuman Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Near Meena Ki Chakki, Rajaredi, Police Station Madanganj, District Ajmer. (At Present In Central Jail, Ajmer).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Savita Nathawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, Public Prosecutor

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶11

Order

¶12

09/09/2025

¶13

The accused-petitioner has filed this fourth bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. arising out of F.I.R. No.154/2024 registered with the Police Station Madanganj, District Ajmer for offence under Sections 147, 323, 504, 143, 307 & 452 of IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. She further submits that the injured- Bajrang Singh has arrived at a compromise with the accused-party. She also submits that the coaccused namely, Balveer Singh S/o Shri Prahlad has already been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.07.2025 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2364/2025 and case of the present accused-petitioner is not in any manner distinguishable from the case of co-accused- Balveer Singh. She also submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody

[CRLMB-11403/2025]

[2025:RJ-JP:36656]

(2 of 3)

since 08.05.2024 and trial of the case will take considerable time to conclude, therefore, the accused-petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the prayer made by counsel for the accused-petitioner.

¶20

Considered the submissions made at bar so also perused the material available on record, including the statements of Bajrang Singh (PW-2) and Roop Singh (PW-6).

¶21

The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while allowing the bail application of co-accused Balveer Singh on 24.07.2025 has observed as under:-

¶22

“3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that no specific act is attributed to the present petitioner in the FIR. Injured Bajrang Singh has arrived at the compromise with all accused persons, which is evident by the trial Court order sheets and the Bajrang Singh deposition has been recorded before the trial Court in which he has stated that it is the co-accused -Manish who has attacked on his head and face. In the Court statement he further stated that Balveer Singh and other persons has attacked to him by the wood stick. Petitioner is behind the bars since 05.05.2024 near about fifteen months. Charge-sheet has been filed and the deposition of the injured Roop Singh has been recorded before the trial Court. The trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further custody, hence the bail application of the petitioner may be allowed.”

¶23

On consideration of the statements of the prosecutions

¶24

witnesses Bajrang Singh (PW-2) and Roop Singh (PW-6) who are

[2025:RJ-JP:36656]

[CRLMB-11403/2025]

(3 of 3)

the injured witnesses, the Court is of the opinion that the case of the present accused-petitioner is in no manner distinguishable from the case of co-accused Balveer Singh, who has already been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶29

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and so as to maintain the parity, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accusedpetitioner on bail.

¶30

This fourth bail application is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided 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) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court or any other Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶31

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶32

Ashish Kumar /12

Prahlad Singh S/O Shri Hanuman Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahlad Singh S/O Shri Hanuman Singh v. the 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

Saroj D/O Ratiram W/O Satyapal Vs Savitri Wife of Krishan Kumar

Moolchand Balai S/O Late Shri Ramuji Balai Vs Ganpati Vihar Vikas Samiti

Mahatma Jyoti Rao Phoole University Vs Shri Kuldeep Ranka Principal Secretary

M/S O.P. Trading Company Vs Shri Vaibhav Galria

Gangaram Meena S/O Late Mr. Netaram Meena, Vs Ranjit Singh S/O Late Shri Netaram Meena

Smt. Chandrakala W/O Ramdev Vs Shri Sumer Singh S/O Shri Bajranglal