Allowed

Harendra S/O Babulal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC25 Aug 2025CRLMB/8802/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application under Section 483 BNSS by two accused arrested in FIR 180/2025 (P.S. Sadar Bundi) for BNS offences including culpable homicide. The FIR attributed the act of hitting to co-accused Vijendra Choudhary as driver; the court granted bail with bonds and monthly police reporting conditions.

What the court decided

AI extract

Harendra S/O Babulal Vs State of Rajasthan — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:33535]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8802/2025

¶4

Harendra S/o Babulal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Gram Daulatpura, Police Station Sadar , District Bundi (Raj). (Presently In Sub Central Jail Bundi (Raj.))

¶5

Mahendra S/o Tulsi Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Gram Daulatpura, Police Station Sadar, District Bundi (Raj). (Presently In Sub Central Jail Bundi (Raj.))

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Amitabh Vijaywargia with Mr. Shivam Sharma for
		Mr. Yuvraj Singh
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP,
		Mr. Mohar Pal Meena and
		Mr. Naresh Kumar Meena

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order

¶12

25/08/2025

¶13

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioners. The petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.180/2025 registered at Police Station Sadar Bundi, District Bundi for the offence(s) under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 281, 110 and 3(5) of BNS.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that in the FIR, the allegation of causing injury to injured Chogalal is specifically attributed to co-accused Vijendra Choudhary, who was driving the car bearing No. RJ-33-CA-2355. The accused-petitioner has been involved solely on the ground that they were sitting in the car. The petitioners have no enimity

[2025:RJ-JP:33535]

[CRLMB-8802/2025]

(2 of 3)

with the complainant or injured, The petitioners are in custody since 19.05.2025 and charge-sheet against them have already been submitted before the concerned Court and the trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioners may be allowed.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioners are habitual offender and against them, 3 and 9 criminal cases respectively, were registered under various offences. It is also contended that police after thorough investigation revealed that the petitioners in connivance with the co-accused Vijendra Choudhary deliberately hit the injured Chogalal and caused his death, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioners may be dismissed.

¶20

Heard and perused the material available on record. 6. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and specifically to the fact that in the FIR, the allegation of hitting the car to the injured is specifically attributed towards other co-accused Vijendra Choudhary, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners namely: 1.

¶22

Harendra S/o Babulal and 2. Mahendra S/o Tulsi Ram, in connection with FIR No.180/2025 registered at Police Station Sadar Bundi, District Bundi, shall be enlarged on bail provided

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:33535]

[CRLMB-8802/2025]

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-petitioners are also directed to mark their presence on 25^th of every month till conclusion of trial before the concerned police station. The SHO of the concerned police station is directed to maintain a regular register marking the presence of the accused-petitioners and shall send the presence report of the accused-petitioners on the same day to the concerned Trial Court without any delay. In case of any breach to the above condition, the learned Public Prosecutor shall be free to move the application against the petitioners for cancellation of the bail before the concerned Court.

¶28

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶29

Keshav/117

Harendra S/O Babulal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Harendra S/O Babulal 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

Smt. Indradevi Wife of Shivdayal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Lakhan S/O Goverdhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Arbaaz Khan @ Mota S/O Late Sukha Vs State of Rajasthan

Manish Kumar @ Chotu Maharaj S/O Late Shri Nathudas Bairagi Vs State of Rajasthan

Aziz Khan @ Aazad @ Azzi S/O Maksud Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra @ Raju S/O Shri Hajarilal Vs State of Rajasthan