Allowed

Harendra S/O Vidyaram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Nov 2025CRLMB/14864/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 483 BNSS for an Arms Act offence. Petitioner in custody since 27.10.2025; counsel noted a co-accused was already bailed out by trial court. Without expressing opinion on merits, the court granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail upon personal bond Rs.50,000 with two sureties Rs.25,000 each, subject to appearing before trial court on all hearing dates.

Harendra S/O Vidyaram Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:45897]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14864/2025

¶4

Harendra S/o Vidyaram, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Manpur Police Station Kaulari District Dholpur (Raj.). (At Present Confined In District Jail, Dholpur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Udit Sapra For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Dave, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR

¶11

Order

¶12

14/11/2025

¶13

The petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.381/2025 registered at Police Station Sadar Dholpur District Dholpur, for offence under Sections 3(1), 25(1B) of Arms Act.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that co-accused Rishikesh has been enlarged on bail by the trial Court itself. He argued that though there is one criminal case of different offence, but in that case also the petitioner has been bailed out. He again submits that petitioner is behind the bars since 27.10.2025. The trial of the case may take considerable

[2025:RJ-JP:45897]

[CRLMB-14864/2025]

(2 of 2)

time, no further custodial interrogation is required, hence the bail application of the petitioner may be allowed.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶20

On consideration of the rival submissions and material available on record and in the light of submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, I am inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner.

¶21

Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner Harendra S/o Vidyaram be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing till conclusion of the trial.

¶22

(PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶23

bmg /184

Harendra S/O Vidyaram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harendra S/O Vidyaram 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

Saikul S/O Noormohammad Vs State of Rajasthan

Saddam @ Babi S/O Anwar, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Babu @ Sonavaj Ali S/O Mohd. Shabbir, Vs State of Rajasthan

Devkinandan S/O Girraj Prasad Vs State of Raj.

Ramniwas S/O Govindram Vs State of Rajasthan

Rinku S/O Raisingh Vs State of Rajasthan