Allowed¶23

Udayraj Jogi S/O Shri Hukam Jogi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Feb 2025CRLMB/1814/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail under Section 483 BNSS allowed (order dt. 10/02/2025) for Udayraj Jogi and Ramlal in FIR No.11/2025, PS Shyam Nagar, Jaipur City (South), offences under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2) & 109(1) BNS; injured failed to appear for X-ray, no final medical opinion on nature of injury; no criminal antecedents; custody since 11.01.2025; personal bond Rs.50,000/- each plus two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each; Bench: Anil Kumar Upman, J.; CRLMB-1814/2025; [2025:RJ-JP:5758].

What did the court decide?

Both accused-petitioners (Udayraj Jogi and Ramlal) to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, subject to appearing on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon. ¶23

Udayraj Jogi S/O Shri Hukam Jogi Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused-petitioners, arrested in connection with FIR No.11/2025 of Police Station Shyam Nagar, District Jaipur City (South), for offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2) & 109(1) of BNS, are entitled to be released on bail under Section 483 of BNSS. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances — especially that the injured themselves did not turn up for their X-ray, the absence of criminal antecedents of the petitioners and the custody period, and without commenting on the merits/demerits of the case — the Court deemed it proper to allow the bail application.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Both accused-petitioners, Udayraj Jogi and Ramlal, are to be released on bail, each furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- together with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, with the stipulation that they 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.

¶23

Key takeaways

The observations made in the order are only for the decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.obiter¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

BAIL GRANTED — High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench (Anil Kumar Upman, J.), by order dated 10/02/2025 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1814/2025, allowed a bail application under Section 483 of BNSS moved on behalf of Udayraj Jogi and Ramlal, arrested in connection with FIR No.11/2025 of Police Station Shyam Nagar, District Jaipur City (South), for offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2) & 109(1) of BNS. Considering that the injured/victims did not turn up for X-ray (so that no final opinion on the nature of injury could be given by the medical expert), the absence of criminal antecedents of the petitioners and their custody since 11.01.2025, and without commenting on the merits/demerits of the case, the Court directed release of each petitioner on a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, with an appearance stipulation; the observations were expressly confined to the bail application and would not impact the trial.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:5758]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1814/2025

¶4

Udayraj Jogi S/o Shri Hukam Jogi, R/o Chakgazipur Kariri, P.s. Todabhim, District Karauli, At Present House No. 5152 Saket Colony Ramsinghpura, P.s. Kanota Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur).

¶5

Ramlal S/o Shri Golilal, R/o Village Khora, Pidawali P.s. Bayana, Dist. Bharatpur, At Present House No. 51-52 Saket Colony Ramsinghpura, P.s. Kanota Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narendra Prasad Meena For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP Mr. Gopal Chand, ASI, Shyam Nagar, Jaipur

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶12

Order

¶13

10/02/2025

¶14

This instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.11/2025 registered at Police Station Shyam Nagar, District Jaipur City (South) (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2) & 109(1) of BNS. Investigation is being conducted for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2) & 109(1) of BNS.

¶15

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that there is no material available on record to

(2 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:5758]

[CRLMB-1814/2025]

show that injuries sustained to the injured are life threatening injuries. Counsel submits that there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioners. Petitioners are in custody since 11.01.2025. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶20

Investigating Officer of this case is present in person and under his instructions, learned State Counsel submits that victim/injured of this case were advised to appear for X-ray but they left the hospital and now they are not turning up. In these circumstances, no X-ray could be done and in absence of X-ray report, no final opinion with regard to nature of injury can be given by the medical expert.

¶21

I have considered the contentions.

¶22

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, especially the fact that injured themselves did not turn up for their X-ray; absence of criminal antecedents of the petitioners; looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow this bail application.

¶23

This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners (1) Udayraj Jogi S/o Shri Hukam Jogi & (2) Ramlal S/o Shri Golilal 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

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:5758]

[CRLMB-1814/2025]

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.

¶28

The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.

¶29

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶30

LALIT MOHAN /2

Udayraj Jogi S/O Shri Hukam Jogi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udayraj Jogi S/O Shri Hukam Jogi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Prakash @ Monu S/O Chetsingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajjo @ Ajay S/O Dhore @ Dharmsingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Fakruddin S/O Abdula Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramlaxman @ Pappu S/O Kalyan Vs State of Rajasthan

Olaye Friday Marvellous S/O Olaye Emeka Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Kumar S/O Ramesh Chand Vs the State of Rajasthan