Dismissed

Arun @ Arjun S/O Ramniwas @ Lalaram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC22 Aug 2025CRLMB/9339/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS. The Court held that the petitioner's criminal record, including ten pending cases such as murder and extortion, alongside allegations of intimidation, was a material consideration warranting denial of bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail application under Section 483 of BNSS was dismissed; petitioner is not entitled to release on bail.

Arun @ Arjun S/O Ramniwas @ Lalaram Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:34823]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9339/2025

¶4

Arun @ Arjun S/o Ramniwas @ Lalaram, R/o Mandhan, Police Station Mandhan, District Kotputli Behror. (At Present Petitioner Lodged In Jail Behror District Kotputli-Behror).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

State Of Rajasthan,	Through	Versus Pp -
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mr.	Bharat Yadav Pankaj Yadav
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr.	Praveen Balwada Mohit Balwada Sunil Shekhawat Vijay Singh Yadav, PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶9

Order

¶10

22/08/2025

¶11

Instant application for bail is filed under Section 483 of BNSS by the applicant-accused Arun @ Arjun S/o Ramniwas @ Lalaram in FIR No. 60/2025 dated 13.03.2025 registered at P.S. Mandhan, District-Kotputli Behror, whereby the applicant-accused was charged under Sections 308 (4) and 351 (2) of BNS

¶12

Learned counsel for applicant submits that applicant-accused is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the instant matter. He further submits that after registration of FIR on 13.03.2025 for incident of 04.03.2025, police has completed the investigation and filed a charge-sheet against the applicant-accused. He further submits that the statement

[2025:RJ-JP:34823]

[CRLMB-9339/2025]

(2 of 4)

of complainant was initially recorded on 08.03.2025 and thereafter supplementary statement of complainant were recorded on two occasions. He further submits that without any proper investigation, and recording statement of independent witnesses, present applicant-accused was arrested. He also submits that police has filed charge-sheet against 5 persons and kept pending against one person under Section 193 (9) of BNSS. He further referred order dated 16.05.2025 in respect of Udit Kumar, order dated 24.06.2025 in respect of Vinod Saini and Jaiprakash @ J.P., order dated 27.06.2025 in respect of Mohit Yogi and submits that 4 accused were already granted bail by the Trial Court and the case of present applicant is identical with them.

¶17

Learned counsel for applicant further referred judgment in case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. The State of Uttar Pradash 2020 AIR OnLine SC 96 and submits that the criminal antecedents is not sufficient to refuse fail to the applicant-accused. He further referred criminal cases shows against applicant-accused and submits that all cases were registered prior to 2022 and no new case was registered in last 2-3 years.

¶18

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. Learned counsel for complainant submits that applicant-accused is main accused and he is having a criminal background and 10 cases were registered against him and he is in a position to create terror in the mind of people.

[2025:RJ-JP:34823]

[CRLMB-9339/2025]

(3 of 4)

Heard learned counsels for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record also perused the judgment as referred by learned counsel for applicant.

¶23

On basis of complaint lodged by complainant Anil Purohit, who is a Saint against present applicant for threat to vacate Dham and demand of ₹10 lacs, a case is registered. During investigation, the statement of complainant were recorded on multiple times, firstly, under the enquiry and later under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and thereafter, a supplementary statement. One of the witness Naveen Kumar has submitted Whatsapp video, which indicate that present applicantaccused has visited Dham of complainant to intimidate complainant. Police has filed a charge-sheet against 5 persons including present applicant. Other accused Udit Kumar, Vinod Saini, Jaiprakash @ J.P. and Mohit Yogi were released on bail by the Trial Court under Section 483 of BNSS.

¶24

The material on record indicate that present applicantaccused is main accused and there are 10 criminal cases against him and it includes FIR No.333/2022 under Section 302 of IPC as well. The nature of cases registered against applicant-accused indicate that cases relating to extortion, were also filed against him.

¶25

In case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. The State of Uttar Pradash (supra) , Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered criminal background of an individual and held that at the stage of bail, grave and serious allegation and pending

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:34823]

[CRLMB-9339/2025]

criminal cases are not the factors on basis of which bail can be refused.

¶30

We have considered judgment in case of State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Darshan Etc. 2025 INSC 979, wherein after considering several judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the bail granted to accused persons were cancelled. It was held that the criminal background of a person is a material consideration while considering bail. The material on record indicate the applicant-accused has a capacity to terrorize and intimidate complainant and his witnesses thereby influencing the system of justice, therefore, the judgment in case of Prabhakar Tewari Vs. The State of Uttar Pradash (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the case.

¶31

Having considered totality of facts and circumstances of the case, the applicant-accused Arun @ Arjun S/o Ramniwas @ Lalaram is not entitled to be released on bail.

¶32

Thus, the instant bail application under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by applicant-accused Arun @ Arjun S/o Ramniwas @ Lalaram, is hereby dismissed.

¶33

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶34

GAURAV /63

Arun @ Arjun S/O Ramniwas @ Lalaram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun @ Arjun S/O Ramniwas @ Lalaram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Babal S/O Dharmpal Babal Vs State of Rajasthan

Chirag Yadav S/O Rampal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Madalla Shriniwas Son of Shri Venkatshwar Rao, Vs Union of India

Hanumanaram S/O Shri Kaushlaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Amit Kumar S/O Shravan Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Sajid Khan S/O Jumruddin Vs State of Rajasthan