Allowed

Brijlal S/O Maduram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Nov 2025CRLMB/14908/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the bail application of two accused-applicants in a case involving offences under Sections 323, 341, 354, 143, and 34 IPC. The court relied on the civil nature of the dispute, lack of criminal antecedents, and the delay in arrest.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to accused-applicants Brijlal and Vikram upon furnishing personal bonds of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

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

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:46233]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14908/2025

¶4

Brijlal S/o Maduram, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Syalodda, P.s Dabla, Tehsil Patan, District Neemkathana, Rajasthan (At Present Confined In District Jail Sikar).

¶5

Vikram S/o Prabhati Lal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Syalodda, P.s Dabla, Tehsil Patan, District Neemkathana, Rajasthan (At Present Confined In District Jail Sikar).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Upendra Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s)	: Ms.	Arti Sharma, PP
	Mr.	Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶12

Judgment

¶13

17/11/2025

¶14

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-applicants. The accused-applicant were arrested in connection with FIR No. 169/2022 registered at Police Station Patan District Sikar for the offence(s) under Sections 323, 341, 354, 143, 34 of IPC.

¶15

Learned counsel for the accused-applicants submits that present matter is civil in nature. The lis in question pertains to an inter se dispute between the parties on account of a quarrel regarding property. It is further submitted that applicants have no criminal antecedents. It is also submitted that complainant has filed present FIR after a delay of one day and upon opinion of

[2025:RJ-JP:46233]

[CRLMB-14908/2025]

(2 of 2)

Doctor received, which is after 3 and half years, action of arrest has been taken.

¶20

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶21

Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, considering that there are no criminal antecedents registered against the applicants; that it was an inter se dispute between the parties regarding property; that matter is civil in nature and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and material on record but without commenting on merits/demerits of the case, this court is inclined to allow the bail application of the accused-applicants and enlarge them on bail.

¶22

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that accused-applicants 1. Brijlal S/o Maduram and 2. Vikram S/o Prabhati Lal, shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶23

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶24

Pooja /324

Brijlal S/O Maduram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijlal S/O Maduram 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

Guljar Hussain S/O Late Shri Gulab Hussain Vs the State of Rajasthan

Akshika Dave D/O Shri Rahul Dave Vs the Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Hitesh Kumar S/O Shri Harnarayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Chitransh Meena S/O Dharmendra Kumar Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramgopal Agarwal S/O Shri Shantinarayan Agarwal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rahul Meena S/O Harphool Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan