Allowed

Yuvraj S/O Gyansingh v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Nov 2025CRLMB/15091/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Praveer Bhatnagar allowed the second bail application of the accused-petitioner charged under BNS provisions involving firearm use. He declined to decide on merits but granted bail considering the nature of injuries, long incarceration, and trial duration, subject to furnishing bonds.

What did the court decide?

Accused-petitioner enlarged on bail by furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each to the trial Judge.

Yuvraj S/O Gyansingh Vs the State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:46591]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No.15091/2025

¶4

Yuvraj S/o Gyansingh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Grauman, Tan Katkad, Police Station Sadar Hindaun, District Karauli. (Presently Confined In Sub Jail, Hindaun City, District Karauli).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Adv. assisted by Mr. Utkarsh Goyal, Adv. Ms. Chanchal, Adv. Ms. Apurva Goyal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

19/11/2025

¶13

The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.329/2025, registered at Police Station Hindaun Sadar, District Karauli for the offence(s) under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2) and 109(1) of BNS.

¶14

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated for the offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109(1) and 3(5) of BNS and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. It is further submitted that although it is alleged that the petitioner used a firearm but no firearm injury was caused to the injured Devi Singh. The injuries sustained by Devi Singh were only abrasions and were found to be simple blunt in nature. The allegation that the

[2025:RJ-JP:46591]

[CRLMB-15091/2025]

(2 of 3)

petitioner fired and hit the vehicle is also incorrect and the petitioner has been falsely implicated on the allegation of having a murderous intention. It is argued that if petitioner intended to cause harm he could have easily inflicted firearm injuries upon the injured or the other persons. It is further contended that there are no criminal antecedents against the accused-petitioner and is in custody since 06.08.2025, charge-sheet has already been submitted and further trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the second bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail application and contended that the first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on merits and thereafter, the Police has charge-sheeted the accused and recovery of firearm was effected from the instance of accused petitioner. It is contended that the accused petitioner has used the firearm and hit the vehicle in which the injured was present, therefore, considering the nature of offence, the second bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed.

¶20

Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. It is not desirable to express anything upon the merits of the case and after considering the nature of injuries sustained to injured Devi Singh, coupled with long incarceration of the petitioner and trial of case likely to take considerable time, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, the second bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Yuvraj S/o Gyansingh , in connection with FIR No.329/2025, registered at Police Station

[2025:RJ-JP:46591]

[CRLMB-15091/2025]

(3 of 3)

Hindaun Sadar, District Karauli, shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge.

¶26

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶27

Ashwani Kr Srivastava/-5

Yuvraj S/O Gyansingh v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yuvraj S/O Gyansingh v. the 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

Jahid S/O Rajak, Vs State of Rajasthan

Chetan Sen Alias Pintu S/O Ramkalyan Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammed Zamir S/O Mohammed Sameer Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Singh S/O Mangal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sukhveer S/O Shri Gulab Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mazeed S/O Ismail Kha Vs State of Rajasthan