Allowed

Pankaj Yadav @ Susu S/O Jagdev v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Sept 2025CRLMB/9956/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a bail application filed by Pankaj Yadav @ Susu accused under Section 483 of BNSS. Finding the accused no longer required for investigation and lacking criminal antecedents, the Court granted bail subject to conditions without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed; release on personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties subject to conditions against tampering, repeating offences, and appearance in court.

Pankaj Yadav @ Susu S/O Jagdev Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:36825]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9956/2025

¶4

Pankaj Yadav @ Susu S/o Jagdev, R/o Kaliyahoda, Police Station Neemrana, District Kotputli-Behror (Raj.) (Presently Confined In Central Jail Alwar).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashwin Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sumer Singh Ola Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶11

Order

¶12

10/09/2025

¶13

1 The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Pankaj Yadav @ Susu S/o Jagdev seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.367/2025 dated 05.07.2025 registered at P.S. Neemrana District – Kotputali Behror, for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1), 115(2) of BNS and Sections 3 and 25 of Arms Act.

¶14

2 Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He also submits that the

[2025:RJ-JP:36825]

[CRLMB-9956/2025]

(2 of 5)

applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time.

¶19

3 Learned counsel for applicant submits that injuredcomplainant Nardev Singh has lodged a report on 05.07.2025 for incident of night of 04.07.2025 wherein he named two persons Bijender and Yogesh in his report for assault upon him along with one more person resident of kaliahoda. He further submitted that during investigation, the statement of complainant was recorded by police under Section 180 of BNSS and again he named both Bijender and Yogesh and one more person but third person was not named in FIR and after arrest of present applicant-accused, police has not conducted any test identification parade (TIP). He further submitted that police has collected CCTV footage and on basis of CCTV footage besides three persons as mentioned in statement and FIR, identified and named two more persons. He further submits that the actual incident is a firing by policemen and not by present applicant. He further submits that present applicant is not involved in the incident as he is not having criminal background and no criminal case has been registered so far against him. He further submits that injured Nardev Singh and Akshay have not sustained injuries on any vital part. He referred the statement of Nardev Singh and Akshay and submits that the investigation will take time.

¶20

4 Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and

[2025:RJ-JP:36825]

[CRLMB-9956/2025]

(3 of 5)

serious in nature. He also submitted that complainant-victim is duly informed.

¶25

5 Aforesaid bail application is opposed by learned counsel for complainant and he specifically read out the sequence of FIR and submits that with connivance and conspiracy with two police constables Rakesh and Ummed, present applicant has assaulted complainant-injured Nardev Singh. He also submitted that to intimidate the complainant injured Nardev Singh, police constables have fired unnecessarily from their service revolver and till date no action has been taken them. He further submits that complainant is not having any criminal background and he is running a PG but he was intimidated by accused persons.

¶26

6 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, learned counsel for complainant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties.

¶27

7 On basis of a complaint lodged by complainant-injured Nardev Singh on 05.07.2025 about incident of night of 04.07.2025, a report is registered when Nardev Singh was admitted in hospital at Neemrana. During investigation, the statement of two injured Nardev Singh and Akshay were recorded and after recording the statement, present applicant was arrested along with two other Sanjay and Rajvir on 10.07.2025. The Trial Court has dismissed the bail application of all three accused on 29.07.2025. There is no criminal antecedents against the applicant-accused. The material on record indicate that two policemen Rakesh, Head Constable DST Team, Kotputali-Behror and Ummed Singh,

[2025:RJ-JP:36825]

[CRLMB-9956/2025]

(4 of 5)

Constable Social Media Cell, Kotputali Behror were also involved in the incident with other accused. It is apparent on record from CCTV footage, collected by Investigating Officer presence of Rakesh, Umed, Sanjay, Bijender, Yogender, Rajvir and Pankaj is established. The allegation of firing is against unnamed persons. The material on record indicate that in fact the firing is from pistol of Rakesh, who is Head Constable in DST team and a policeman. It is the duty of the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter in transparent and fair manner. Several representations were also given by complainant for fair investigation. There is no criminal antecedents against the applicant-accused and there is no direct involvement of applicant-accused, in incident of firing. 8 Upon hearing the arguments and perusing the record, we have found that the applicant-accused is no more required in the investigation and he is in custody for quite some time. The further proceedings will take its own time, therefore, looking to entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the applicantaccused.

¶32

9 Thus, the instant bail application filed on behalf of applicantaccused Pankaj Yadav @ Susu S/o Jagdev is hereby allowed and the applicant-accused is ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the following conditions:-

[2025:RJ-JP:36825]

[CRLMB-9956/2025]

(5 of 5)

(i) The applicant-accused shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner.

¶37

(ii) The applicant-accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the Law.

¶38

(iii) The applicant-accused shall attend the hearing of the Trial Court on the date fixed by the Trial court or as and when asked to appear before the Trial Court.

¶39

(iv) In case of any violation of above conditions, the bail granted to the applicant-accused shall be liable to be canceled.

¶40

The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court through E-mail.

¶41

A copy of this order be sent to the IGP, Jaipur Range for action.

¶42

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶43

MONU /147

Pankaj Yadav @ Susu S/O Jagdev v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Yadav @ Susu S/O Jagdev 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Toheed S/O Shri Samaydeen Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Madhu D/O Pratap W/O Manoj Vs State of Rajasthan

Israel S/O Rujdar Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohin S/O Azad Mohammad Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra @ Raju S/O Ramnarayan Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramchandra S/O Bajuram Vs State of Rajasthan