Allowed

Chintu S/O Amichand v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Feb 2025CRLMB/15760/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Six petitioners arrested for group assault and Arms Act offences in FIR No.378/2024 sought bail citing custody duration and land dispute context. The court considered custody periods and trial timeline and allowed the applications, granting conditional regular bail to all six with monthly police-station presence.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:4673]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15760/2024

¶4

Chintu S/o Amichand, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Gujriwas Thana Kotkasim District Khairthal-Tijara, Raj. (Presently Confined In Kishangarh Bas, Alwar).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16187/2024 Harish @ Tillu S/o Mahaveer, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Jakopur Police Thana Kotkasim District Khairtal Tijara (Raj.) (Presently Confined In Kishangarh Bas).

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16188/2024 Bhimsingh S/o Kanwarsingh, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Jakopur Police Thana Kotkasim District Khairtal Tijara (Raj.) (Presently Confined In Kishangarh Bas).

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16189/2024

¶21

Basant Kumar S/o Ramher, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Jakhopur Police Station Kotkasim District Khairthal Tijara (At Present In Sub Jail, Kishangarhbas).

¶22

Rajbir S/o Matadin, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Jakhopur Police Station Kotkasim District Khairthal Tijara (At Present In Sub Jail, Kishangarhbas).

¶23

----Petitioners

¶24

Versus

¶25

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶26

----Respondent

¶27

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 320/2025

¶28

Jeetu @ Jitendra Son Of Bhawani Singh, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Gujrivas, Police Station Kotkasim, District KotkasimTijara (Raj). (At Present Accused Is Confined In Sub Jail Kishangarh Bas)

¶29

----Petitioner

¶30

[2025:RJ-JP:4673] (2 of 4)

¶31

[CRLMB-15760/2024]

¶32

Versus

¶33

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶34

----Respondent

¶35

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ashvin Garg Mr. Harendra Singh
	Mr. Shivam
	Mr. Aslam S. Khan
For Respondent(s)	: Ms. Arti Sharma, PP

¶36

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶37

Order

¶38

03/02/2025

¶39

These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.378/2024 registered at Police Station Kotkasim, District Khairthan-Tijara (Rajasthan) for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 126(2), 329(3), 333, 324(4), 109(1) & 351(2) of BNS and Sections 3, 25, 25(6) & 5 of Arms Act. Investigation is being conducted for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 126(2), 329(3), 333, 324(4), 109(1) & 351(2) of BNS and Sections 3/25, 25(6) & 5/27 of Arms Act.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that there is land dispute between the parties. Counsel submits that three females have sustained injuries and one grievous injury has been found on the person of each female which is on non-vital part of the body. Petitioners Chintu, Bhimsingh, Basant Kumar & Harish @ Tillu are in custody since 06.11.2024, Petitioner Jeetu @

(3 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:4673]

[CRLMB-15760/2024]

Jitendra is in custody since 08.11.2024 & petitioner Rajbir in custody since 10.11.2024 and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶45

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. Counsel for the complainant submits that entire incident was captured in the CCTV cameras wherein all the persons are visible and petitioner Jeetu @ Jitendra has captured with firearm. He further submits that there are five other criminal antecedents of the petitioner Jeetu @ Jitendra which is evident from the impugned order.

¶46

At this stage, Learned counsel for the petitioner Jeetu @ Jitendra submits that none of the female has sustained firearm injuries and other criminal cases pending against the petitioner Jeetu @ Jitendra are of petty nature.

¶47

I have considered the contentions.

¶48

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, as also material available on record in the form of case diary; period of custody of the petitioners and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow these bail applications.

¶49

These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners (1) Chintu S/o Amichand, (2) Harish @ Tillu S/o Mahaveer, (3) Bhimsingh S/o

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:4673]

[CRLMB-15760/2024]

Kanwarsingh, (4) Basant Kumar S/o Ramher, (5) Rajbir S/o Matadin & (6) Jeetu @ Jitendra Son Of Bhawani Singh

¶54

shall be released on bail provided each of them 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 they 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.

¶55

It is made clear that the accused-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station.

¶56

Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioners. In case the petitioners fail to mark their presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard.

¶57

If any breach 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 them by this Court.

¶58

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN), J

¶59

LALIT MOHAN /149-153

Chintu S/O Amichand v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Chintu S/O Amichand v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harkesh Singh S/O Shri Pyarelal Dhaker (Thakur) Vs State of Rajasthan

Anil Kumar S/O Nand Kishore, Vs State of Rajasthan

Vakeel Mohmmad S/O Gafru @ Gafrudeen Vs State of Rajasthan

Govind Ram S/O Gangaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhimsingh S/O Kanwarsingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Farukh Husain S/O Abdul Gafoor Vs State of Rajasthan