Dismissed

Satish Chand S/O Chhitarmal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Dec 2025CRLMB/15490/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed bail applications under Section 482 B.N.S.S. filed by accused petitioners in an assault case involving grievous injury, holding that arrest is necessary for investigation and there are no grounds for pre-arrest bail at this stage.

What did the court decide?

Bail applications filed under Section 482 B.N.S.S. were not admitted as the court deemed arrest necessary for investigation purposes.

Satish Chand S/O Chhitarmal Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:49171]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15490/2025

¶4

Satish Chand S/o Chhitarmal, R/o Village Lalita Mundiya, P.s Halena, Distt. Bharatpur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

Amit Kumar S/o Kartarsingh, R/o Village Lalita Mundiya, P.s. Halena, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15491/2025

¶12

Ramsingh S/o Mangya, R/o Village Lalita Mundiya P.s. Halena, Distt. Bharatpur.

¶13

Rakesh S/o Mansingh, R/o Village Lalita Mundiya P.s. Halena, Distt. Bharatpur.

¶14

----Petitioners

¶15

Versus

¶16

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶17

Amit Kumar S/o Kartarsingh, R/o Village Lalita Mundiya, P.s. Halena, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶18

----Respondents

¶19

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ambrish Vashishtha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, P.P. Mr. Arvind Sharma

¶20

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

¶21

Order

¶22

03/12/2025

¶23

The present bail applications have been filed under Section 482 B.N.S.S. on behalf of the accused-petitioners, namely Satish

¶24

Chand S/o Chhitarmal, Ramsingh S/o Mangya & Rakesh S/o

[2025:RJ-JP:49171]

[CRLMB-15490/2025]

(2 of 3)

Mansingh, in connection with FIR No.104/2025 registered at Police Station Halena, District Bharatpur for the offence(s) under Section(s) 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 118(2) & 127(2) of B.N.S.

¶29

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that the accused-petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case and they have nothing to do with the alleged offence(s). Counsel further submits that an F.I.R. bearing No.102/2025 was registered at Police Station Halena District Bharatpur by the petitioners against the complainant, and, as a counterblast to the aforesaid F.I.R., the present F.I.R. has been lodged by the complainant against the present petitioners with vague allegations. Trial is likely to take long time to conclude. Their custodial interrogation would not be required for any purpose in the matter.

¶30

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant-respondent have vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioners along with other co-accused persons, assaulted the complainant, namely Amit Kumar, as a result of which complainant sustained multiple injuries. Out of said injuries, Injury No.3 has been found to be grievous in nature, caused by a sharp-edged weapon. It is further pointed out that the petitioners have been specifically named as accused in the F.I.R.

¶31

Having considered the totality of the facts & circumstances of the case, and perusal of the complainant’s statement, it is evident that direct allegations have been made against the petitioners, asserting their involvement in causing several injuries including grievous injury (Injury No.3) caused by a sharp-edged weapon.

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:49171]

[CRLMB-15490/2025]

It is well settled that the power exercisable under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. is somewhat extraordinary in character and it is only in exceptional cases where it appears that the person may be falsely implicated or where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence, is not likely to otherwise misuse his liberty. It is also well settled that ordinarily, arrest is a part of the process of investigation intended to secure several purposes and it may be necessary to curtail the freedom of an accused in order to enable the investigation to proceed without hindrance and prevent the disappearance of the accused.

¶36

Thus, without commenting upon the merits/demerits of the case, this Court does not deem it appropriate to grant the benefit of pre-arrest bail to the accused-petitioners.

¶37

Accordingly, the instant bail applications filed under Section

¶38

482 B.N.S.S. is dismissed.

¶39

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J

¶40

SAURABH /172-173

Satish Chand S/O Chhitarmal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Chand S/O Chhitarmal 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

Jeevraj S/O Shri Gheesalal Vs State of Rajasthan

Jayram S/O Shri Ramcharan Vs State of Rajasthan

Yadram Gurjar Son of Ramswaroop Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan

Bahadur @ Bhadur Singh S/O Maharaj Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravindra Gajraj S/O Dharmchand Vs State of Rajasthan

Wasim Akram S/O Shri Hasam Vs State of Rajasthan