Ajayraj Singh Urf Piyush S/O Vijendrasingh @ Bablu Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:18354]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No.4526/2025

¶4

Ajayraj Singh @ Piyush S/o Vijendra Singh @ Bablu, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Balaji Ke Mandir Ke Pass Amarpura, Mangrol P.S. Mangrol, District Baran, Raj. (Presently Lodged At District In District Jail Baran).

¶5

Narendra Singh @ Narvar Singh S/o Shankar Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Balaji Ke Mandir Ke Pass Amarpura, Mangrol P.S. Mangrol, District Baran, Raj. (Presently Lodged At District In District Jail Baran).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhim Singh Meena, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶12

Order

¶13

01/05/2025

¶14

The instant 2^nd bail application has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. on behalf of accused-petitioners. The accusedpetitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.273/2024, registered at Police Station Mangrol, District Baran, for the offence(s) under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 110, 352, 3(5) and 117(2) of BNS.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accusedpetitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that first bail application of the accused-petitioners was dismissed vide order dated 25.02.2025 with the liberty to file afresh after filing of the charge-sheet. It is also argued that the charge-sheet

[2025:RJ-JP:18354]

[CRLMB-4526/2025]

(2 of 3)

has been produced against the accused-petitioners. It is contended that the concerned doctor did not opine any injuries sustained to injured-Karan Singh as dangerous to life. It is further contended that the cross case was also lodged against the injuredKaran Singh as the petitioner-Ajayraj Singh also sustained injuries at his head, therefore, considering the nature of injuries caused to injured-Karan Singh and the fact that the trial of the case may take considerable time, the instant second bail application of the accused-petitioners may be allowed.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of second bail application. It is contended that injured-Karan Singh sustained fracture of left frontal scene, and he has specifically attributed the injuries sustained at his head on petitioner-Ajayraj, therefore, considering the injury sustained to injured Karan Singh, the bail application of the accused-petitioners may be dismissed.

¶21

Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. The concerned doctor has not opined that the injury caused to injured at his head was dangerous to life. The injury sustained to injured Karan Singh is grievous injuries on the left frontal sinus. The record also shows that the petitioner-Ajayraj also sustained injury at his head and cross case was lodged against the complainant-party. Therefore, considering the above fact, without further going into the merits of the case and considering the aspects that the petitioners are in custody since long and trial of the case may take considerable time, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail.

¶22

Accordingly, the second bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners,

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:18354]

[CRLMB-4526/2025]

namely 1. Ajayraj Singh @ Piyush S/o Vijendra Singh @ Bablu and 2. Narendra Singh @ Narvar Singh S/o Shankar Singh, in connection with FIR No.273/2024, registered at Police Station Mangrol, District Baran, shall be enlarged on bail provided both of them furnish 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 for their appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶27

The accused-petitioner- Narendra Singh @ Narvar Singh S/o Shankar Singh , is also directed to mark his presence on 25^th of every month till conclusion of trial before the concerned Police Station. The SHO of the concerned Police Station shall send the presence report of the accused-petitioner to the trial Court, every month. In case of any breach to the above condition, the learned Public Prosecutor shall be free to move the application against the petitioner for cancellation of the bail before the concerned Court.

¶28

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶29

Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-8

Ajayraj Singh Urf Piyush S/O Vijendrasingh @ Bablu v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajayraj Singh Urf Piyush S/O Vijendrasingh @ Bablu 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

Mohammed Yusuf S/O Late Shri Bashiruddin, Vs State of Rajasthan

Harishchand S/O Rambharosi B/C Jatav Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramkesh S/O Bhantaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay Kumar S/O Sh. Sardara Ram Jat, Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod Kumar Todi Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Ramprakash @ Prakash Son of Shri Mangi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan