Allowed

Sumit S/O Prahalad Sansi v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Sept 2026CRLMB/12266/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court allowed the bail application of a petitioner accused of theft. The court held that keeping the petitioner in custody would not serve any purpose as the trial would take considerable time, even though the charge requiring a prior conviction was not made out.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Sumit S/O Prahalad Sansi Vs the State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:35603]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12266/2026 CNR: RJHC020749612026 | URN: CRLMB / 22572U / 2026

¶4

Sumit S/o Prahalad Sansi, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Laxmipura, Police Station Chabda, District Baran, Rajasthan. (Presently Confined In O.i.c. Sub Jail Rajgarh).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anubhav Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 03/09/2026

¶11

The petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.208/2026 registered at Police Station Shahpura (Jaipur Rural), District Jaipur Rural for offences under Section 303(2) of BNS, 2023.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner contend that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that the allegation levelled against the present petitioner is that he stole a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- by breaking the window glass of the vehicle belonging to the complainant-Amarchand. He further submits that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner. He contends that Section 111(2)(b) of the BNS, 2023 has been added by the police merely with a view to enhancing the gravity of the offence. He submits that for attracting the provisions of Section 111(2)(b) of the BNS, 2023,

[2026:RJ-JP:35603]

[CRLMB-12266/2026]

(2 of 2)

more than one charge-sheet ought to have been filed against the accused during the preceding ten years, whereas, in the present case, only one case is pending against the petitioner. Thus, the ingredients necessary for invoking the said provision are not satisfied in the present matter. Petitioner is behind the bars since 21.06.2026 though one case has been reported against him, however, in that case he is already on bail. Charge-sheet has already been filed. The trial of the case will take considerable time, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further custody, consequently, the bail application deserves to be allowed.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application of the petitioner.

¶19

On consideration of the rival submissions and material available on record and in the light of submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, I am inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner. 6. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner Sumit S/o Prahalad Sansi, be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that each of he shall appear before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing till conclusion of the trial.

¶20

(PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶21

Chandan/37

Sumit S/O Prahalad Sansi v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit S/O Prahalad Sansi v. the 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