Vishnu Shrama S/O Shri Ramswaroop Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:15034]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 24/2026

¶4

IN

¶5

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9925/2025

¶6

Vishnu Shrama S/o Shri Ramswaroop Sharma, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Palsala Mohalla, Village Shayamsinghpura, Tehsil Baswa, Police Station Kolwa, Dausa, Rajasthan, Presently Residing At House No 37, Kehsav Park, Jamdoli, Police Station Jamdoli, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined At Central Jail Ghatgate, Jaipur).

¶7

----Petitioner/Accused

¶8

Versus

¶9

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶10

----Respondent

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Krishan Chander Sharma with
	Mr.	Pawan Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Manvendra Singh Shekhawat,PP

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶13

Order

¶14

10/04/2026

¶15

The instant criminal miscellaneous application has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for modification of order dated 11.11.2025 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9925/2025 whereby the bail application of the applicant was allowed subject some conditions.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that condition no.19(a) is causing impediment in release of applicant on bail, which is already granted vide order dated 11.11.2025, whereby only one bank account was made to be operative and other multiple bank accounts were to be closed.

[2026:RJ-JP:15034]

[CRLMA-24/2026]

(2 of 3)

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that qua the multiple bank accounts, he has filed an application for closure, as also exhibited upon page-44, but the concerned bank has denied to close the said account, for the reason that the said account is under surveillance due to investigation.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor while placing reliance upon the contents of reply file, has submitted that in the instant matter investigation is ongoing, therefore, the bank accounts in question cannot be closed.

¶22

Heard and considered the submissions made, and perused the material available on record. 6. In the foregoing facts and circumstances, this Court deems it just to place reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in Ramadhar Sahu Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh : Criminal Appeal

¶23

No. 3216 of 2023 (arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 11130/2023), wherein it is cautiously clarified that bail conditions can be modified in rarest of rare matters, for exceptional and justified reasons. The present case is an illustration of the same; thence, this Court makes it unambiguous that condition no. 19(a) will not cause impediment to the applicant being enlarged on bail. The relevant extract from Ramadhar

¶24

Sahu (supra), is reproduced hereinbelow:

¶25

“ 5. An order for refusal of bail however, inherently carries certain characteristics of an interlocutory order in that certain variation or alteration in the context in which a bail plea is dismissed confers on the detained Accused right to file a fresh application for bail on certain changed circumstances. Thus, an order rejecting prayer for bail does not disempower the Court from considering such plea afresh if there is any alteration of the circumstances. Conditions of bail could also be varied if a case is made out for

(3 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:15034]

[CRLMA-24/2026]

such variation based on that factor. Prohibition contemplated in Section 362 of the Code could not apply in such cases. Hence, we do not think the reasoning on which the impugned order was passed rejecting the Appellant’s application of bail can be sustained. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court. The bail petition of the Appellant before the High Court shall revive to be examined afresh by the High Court in the light of our observations made in this order.”

¶30

The order dated 11.11.2025 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9925/2025 is modified to the extent enumerated herein above. It is made clear that no changes are made to the remaining contents of the order in question; and that the present order be considered as a part and parcel of the order passed on 11.11.2025 (supra).

¶31

In view of the aforementioned, the instant application is allowed .

¶32

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶33

DEEPAK /s-209

Vishnu Shrama S/O Shri Ramswaroop Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishnu Shrama S/O Shri Ramswaroop Sharma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Singh S/O Jagdish Prasad Vs the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan

Pinki Yadav Wife of Ravish Kumar Yadav Daughter of Shri Satish Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Jyoti Kumari Wife of Jitendra Kumar Daughter of Shri Satish Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Tayyab Ali Son of Mohammad Rafiq Vs State of Rajasthan

Hardanaram S/O Late Shri Babulal Vishnoi Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Chandra Gurjar S/O Raghunath Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan