Devilal Son of Shri Kanaram, Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

(1 of 3)

¶2

[2025:RJ-JP:44881]

¶3

[CRLMB-14521/2025]

¶4

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶5

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 14521/2025

¶6

Devilal Son Of Shri Kanaram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Holya Ka Bas, Police Station Thoi, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar Rajasthan. (At Present Accused-Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail Shrimadhopur (Sikar))

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Babu Lal Nasuna
		Mr. Bholu Ram Jat
		Mr. Prem Prakash Dhayal
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with
		Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Assistant GA

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶13

Order

¶14

10/11/2025

¶15

This second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.501/2024 registered at Police Station Shrimadhopur, District Neem Ka Thana (Raj.) for offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 324(4), 109(1) and 307 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023.

¶16

The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 21.08.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after submission of result of investigation. Now, charge-sheet has been filed thus, this second bail application has been preferred.

(2 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:44881]

[CRLMB-14521/2025]

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that no case under Section 109(1) of BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 307 of IPC) is made out as all the injuries sustained to injured person have been opined as simple in nature and allegations under Section 307 of BNS, 2023 (Corresponding to Section 382 of IPC) have not been found proved in the investigation. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 21.07.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as six other cases have been registered against him however, he fairly concedes that all the injuries sustained to injured person have been opined as simple in nature.

¶22

I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, as also considering the fact that all the injuries sustained to injured person have been opined as simple in nature and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the second bail application.

¶23

This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Devilal Son Of Shri Kanaram,

[2025:RJ-JP:44881]

[CRLMB-14521/2025]

(3 of 3)

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/- (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.

¶28

However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court. The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station in first week of every month, till trial is concluded.

¶29

Concerned SHO shall enter the attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his 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.

¶30

If breach of any 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 petitioner by this Court.

¶31

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

¶32

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.

¶33

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶34

GAUTAM JAIN /9

Devilal Son of Shri Kanaram, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devilal Son of Shri Kanaram, 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

Sarjeet S/O Shri Sumer Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ankit Jain S/O Sh. Mahesh Jain Vs State of Rajasthan

Ummedi Kanwar W/O Kalyan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Jethanand Tanwani S/O Jethanand Tanwani Vs Union of India

Uma Shanker S/O Shri Govind Ram, Adopted S/O Shri Laxmi Narayan Vs the Commissioner, Devasthan Vibhag

Jitendra Sharma Son of Ramkishan Gouttam Vs Union of India