Purushottam S/O Ramnath Adopted S/O Jagannath… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2026)

Purushottam S/O Ramnath Adopted S/O Jagannath… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused-petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail under Section 483 BNSS in connection with FIR No. 529/2025 (offences under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 3(5) of BNS 2023), after his earlier bail application was dismissed by the Trial Court on 12.01.2026.

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence available on record collected during investigation, and the previous conduct of the petitioner, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

Ratio / Principle

The Court took into account the investigation finding of pre-meeting of mind between the accused-petitioner and the other co-accused for giving effect to the incident, which weighed against grant of bail.

Key takeaways

From the trial court's rejection order the Court noted that 23 other criminal cases are registered against the accused-petitioner, who is said to have been acquitted in various cases but has been convicted in one case, contributing to his previous conduct weighed against bail.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail — Section 483 BNSS — bail application of Purushottam, accused in FIR No. 529/2025, P.S. Kotwali Baran, District Baran, for offences under Sections 103(1), 61(2) and 3(5) of BNS 2023, DISMISSED. Earlier bail application had been rejected by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Baran vide order dated 12.01.2026. Allegation: enmity with the complainant party over pending litigations; co-accused allegedly hired by the petitioner hit the complainant party (on their way to Court for evidence) with a car, causing death of Rukmani and Sanjay; investigation revealed pre-meeting of mind between the petitioner and co-accused; 23 other criminal cases stand registered against the petitioner, who has been acquitted in various cases but convicted in one. Considering the overall facts, the investigation evidence and the petitioner's previous conduct, the Court declined to enlarge him on bail. — Justice Ganesh Ram Meena; order dated 16.04.2026.

[2026:RJ-JP:15796]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1075/2026

Purushottam S/o Ramnath Adopted S/o Jagannath, R/o Kotdi Patheda, Police Station Sadar Baran, District Baran (Raj.) (At Present Confined In District Jail Baran)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajveer Singh Rajawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, P.P.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order

16/04/2026

This instnat bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 BNSS in connection with FIR No. 529/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali Baran, District Baran for offences under Sections 103(1), 61(2), 3(5) of BNS 2023 against the order dated 12.01.2026 whereby learned Trial Court dismissed the bail application filed by the accused-petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 103(1), 111(2)(a), 61(2)(a).

Heard.

Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also go through the investigation report.

The allegation against the accused-petitioner is that since he was having enmity with the complainant party because of certain litigations in between them and when the complainant

[2026:RJ-JP:15796]

[CRLMB-1075/2026]

(2 of 2)

party was going to the Court for evidence in a case on a motorcycle, they were hit by a car in which co-accused were there who were hired by the petitioner. In the alleged incident two persons namely; Rukmani and Sanjay died.

It is not in dispute that certain litigations are pending in between the parties and there is an evidence that the complainant party was going to the Court at Baran and at the relevant time there was a car wherein the other family members of the accusedpetitioner were there including the son of the petitioner. During the investigation, the Police has also come out with the fact that there was pre-meeting of the mind of the present accusedpetitioner with the other co-accused for giving effect to this incident.

On perusal of the rejection order passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Baran, it is also revealed that 23 other criminal cases are registered against the accusedpetitioner though he is said to have been acquitted in various cases, but in one of the cases he has been convicted.

Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record collected during investigation and previous conduct of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accusedpetitioner on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

SHRUTI SHARMA /9