Kunnal Sharma Urf Kunal Sharma S/O Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:38880]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11604/2025

Kunnal Sharma Urf Kunal Sharma S/o Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Under Shubham Nursing Home, Osawali Mohalla, Madanganj, Police Station Madanganj, District Ajmer (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer Since 15.07.2025).

¶5

----Accused-Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11799/2025 Pratap Kumar S/o Shree Jogaram, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Kothar Police Station Nana Tehsil Baali District Pali At Present Jhuggi Jhopadi Aaditya Meel Colony Ke Samne (Maya Bazaar Ke Paas) Madanganj Kishangarh District Ajmer (At Present In Central Jail, Ajmer).

¶11

----Accused-Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Hardev Singh, Adv., with Mr. Buddhi Prakash Sharma, Adv., Mr. Anil Vaishnav, Adv., and Mr. Yunus Khan,Adv.
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta,Asstt.G.A.

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶17

Order

¶18

20/09/2025

¶19

These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.151/2025 registered at Police Station Madanganj, District Ajmer for the offences punishable under Sections 331(4) and 305(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023.

[2025:RJ-JP:38880]

[CRLMB-11604/2025]

(2 of 3)

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. They submit that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. They further submit that the petitioners have been made accused simultaneously in three cases. In one case, bail has been granted to the petitioner-Kunnal Sharma by this Court. They contend that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. They argue that the petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the petitioners are habitual offender as other criminal cases have been registered against them. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, especially the fact that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow these bail applications.

¶25

These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners – 1. Kunnal Sharma Urf Kunal Sharma S/o Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma and 2. Pratap Kumar S/o Shree Jogaram shall be released on bail provided, each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:38880]

[CRLMB-11604/2025]

sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶30

It is made clear that the accused-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded.

¶31

Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioners, as directed above. In case the petitioners fail to mark their presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard.

¶32

If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to them by this Court.

¶33

Office is directed to send copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance.

¶34

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

¶35

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶36

MADAN/108-109

Kunnal Sharma Urf Kunal Sharma S/O Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunnal Sharma Urf Kunal Sharma S/O Shri Ajay Kumar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munna S/O Ramswaroop Vs the State of Rajasthan

Prakash Vishnoi S/O Vasudev Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ajit Singh S/O Raju Vs the State of Rajasthan

Wasim S/O Shri Abdul Sami Vs State of Rajasthan

Bheekam Singh @ Dauji S/O Shri Vidhyaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Saurabh S/O Chaganlal, Vs State of Rajasthan