Allowed

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

Rajasthan HC20 Sept 2025CRLMB/11960/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the bail application of Bheekam Singh, arrested in a firearm-related case. Considering the charge sheet, the fact that injury allegations are against a co-accused, and the duration of custody, bail was granted without commenting on case merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each subject to conditions of presence and police reporting.

Bheekam Singh @ Dauji S/O Shri Vidhyaram Vs State of… — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:38781]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11960/2025

¶4

Bheekam Singh @ Dauji S/o Shri Vidhyaram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Aachhelal Ki Gadhi, Police Station Rajakhera, District Dholpur. (At Present Confined In District Jail Dholpur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yogesh Singhal For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt. G.A.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶11

Order

¶12

20/09/2025

¶13

This bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.150/2025 registered at Police Station Raja Khera, District Dholpur (Rajasthan) for offences punishable under Sections 109(1) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed chargesheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 118(2) & 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3/25 & 5/27 of Arms Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that allegation of causing firearm injury is against co-accusedMadhavsingh @ Kachhuwa. Counsel submits that no firearm has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is

(2 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:38781]

[CRLMB-11960/2025]

submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 17.05.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that presence of the petitioner is well-established at the place of incident as he is duly named in the FIR. He further submits that two other cases have been registered against the petitioner.

¶20

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been acquitted in one case and in other case, benefit of bail has been granted to him. 5. I have considered the contentions.

¶21

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, so also the fact that allegation of causing firearm injury is against co-accusedMadhavsingh @ Kachhuwa 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 fit and proper to allow this bail application.

¶22

This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Bheekam Singh @ Dauji S/o Shri Vidhyaram shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/-

[2025:RJ-JP:38781]

[CRLMB-11960/2025]

(3 of 3)

(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he 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.

¶27

It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station.

¶28

Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard.

¶29

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 him by this Court.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶33

LALIT MOHAN /41

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bheekam Singh @ Dauji S/O Shri Vidhyaram 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

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

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

Saurabh S/O Chaganlal, Vs State of Rajasthan