Vijendra Singh S/O Shri Hari Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:20183]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5549/2025

¶4

Keshar Singh @ Monu S/o Shri Phoolsingh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Gadh Post Binjari, Police Station Rajgadh District Alwar, At Present R/o As A Tenant House No. 13A Krashana Kunj Second Badaran, Police Station Harmada Jaipur (West). (Accused Confined In Central Jail Jaipur).

¶5

Lakhan Singh Rajput S/o Lt. Shri Gopal Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Gadh Post Binjari, Police Station Rajgadh District Alwar, At Present R/o Plot No. 03 Chandeja Nagar Badharana Vishwakarta, Police Station Vishwakarma, Jaipur (West). (Accused Confined In Central Jail Jaipur).

¶6

Satpal Singh @ Pintu S/o Shri Phool Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Gadh Post Binjari, Police Station Rajgadh District Alwar, At Present R/o As A Tenant House No. 13A Krashana Kunj Second Badaran, Police Station Harmada Jaipur (West). (Accused Confined In Central Jail Jaipur).

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5669/2025

¶13

Vijendra Singh S/o Shri Hari Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Kanchanpura, Tehsil And Police Station Shrimadhopur, District Sikar, Presently House Number A 80, Balaji Vihar 39, Deeppura Todi, Police Station Harmada, Jaipur, Presently Driver Of Loading Tempo Tata S, Registration Number Rj 14 Gj 2838. (At Present Confined In District Jail, Jaipur).

¶14

----Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶17

----Respondent

¶18

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5741/2025

¶19

(2 of 4) [CRLMB-5549/2025]

¶20

[2025:RJ-JP:20183]

¶21

Tejpal Saini S/o Shri Laxman Ram Saini, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Maid, Tehsil And Police Station Virat Nagar, District Kotputli-Behror, At Present Tenant House No. A-135, Balaji Vihar, 29 New Loha Mandi Road, Police Station Harmada, Jaipur (West). (At Present In Central Jail, Jaipur).

¶22

Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Babulal Saini, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Maid Dhani Rundla Ki, Tehsil And Police Station Virat Nagar, District Kotputli-Behror, At Present Tenant House No. A-135, Balaji Vihar, 29 New Loha Mandi Road, Police Station Harmada, Jaipur (West). (At Present In Central Jail, Jaipur).

¶23

----Petitioners

¶24

Versus

¶25

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶26

----Respondent

¶27

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma
	Mr. Sanjay Khedar Mr. Jitendra Singh
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Onkar Singh Rajpurohit, PP
For Complainant	: Mr. Ghanshyam Das Bansal

¶28

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR

¶29

Order

¶30

13/05/2025

¶31

The petitioners have preferred these bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.134/2025 registered at Police Station-Vishwakarma, District-Jaipur (West) for the offences under Sections 318(2) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 63 and 65 of Copyright Act, 1957. Since all these bail applications arise from common order, hence, they are being decided by this single order.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant and perused the

[2025:RJ-JP:20183]

[CRLMB-5549/2025]

(3 of 4)

material available on record.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were daily wage workers in the office of Govind Sharma. Govind Sharma is main kingpin as per story of prosecution. Counsel further submits that the allegation against the recovery of the so called articles are from the factory/premises of the employer-Govind Sharma. No previous case is registered against any of the petitioners. Petitioners are behind the bars since 12.04.2025. The trial of the case may take considerable time, hence the bail applications of the petitioners may be allowed.

¶38

Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail applications and submitted that this case involves the violation of copyright also.

¶39

On consideration of the rival submission and material available on record and deliberating all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, I am inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioners.

¶40

Accordingly, the bail applications under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioners -Keshar Singh @ Monu S/o Shri Phoolsingh, Lakhan Singh Rajput S/o Lt. Shri Gopal Singh, Satpal Singh @ Pintu S/o Shri Phool Singh, Vijendra Singh S/o Shri Hari Singh, Tejpal Saini S/o Shri Laxman Ram Saini and Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Babulal Saini shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond

¶41

[2025:RJ-JP:20183] (4 of 4)

¶42

[CRLMB-5549/2025]

¶43

in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each of them to the satisfaction of the learned trial court for their appearance before that Court on all the dates till conclusion of the trial.

¶44

(PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶45

Arun/13-15

Vijendra Singh S/O Shri Hari Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijendra Singh S/O Shri Hari Singh v. the 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

Digvijay Singh S/O Shri Kuldeep Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Manoj S/O Sh. Pokharram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Harimohan @ Fatu S/O Kailash Vs State of Rajasthan

Neetu @ Bhavesh Prajapat W/O Late Devendra @ Ramavatar Prajapat Vs State of Rajasthan

Jaisingh S/O Shri Vijay Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Balram S/O Banshilal Vs State of Rajasthan