Allowed

Tejpal @ Kalu S/O Girdhari v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Sept 2026CRLMB/13475/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Tejpal @ Kalu filed a second bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. in a case involving offences under B.N.S., 2023 and the Arms Act. The就诊 court allowed the bail, noting that the injured witness made no specific allegation against the petitioner and co-accused were already on bail, directing a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Enlarged the accused-petitioner on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each.

Tejpal @ Kalu S/O Girdhari Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:35568]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 13475/2026

¶4

CNR: RJHC020793152026 | URN: CRLMB / 24939U / 2026

¶5

Tejpal @ Kalu S/o Girdhari, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Bilali, Police Station Basdayal, District Kotputli-Behror. (Accused In Sub Jail, Behror).

¶6

----Accused-Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jai Raj Tantia For Respondent(s) : Ms. Aarti Sharma, Public Prosecutor Pt. Shri Ram Joshi counsel for the complainant

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶12

Order

¶13

03/09/2026

¶14

The accused-petitioner has filed this second bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S., arising out of F.I.R. No.16/2025 registered with the Police Station Basdayal, District Kotputli-Behror for offence under Sections 109(1) and 3(5) of B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act.

¶15

The first bail application of the accused-petitioner bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.331/2026 was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 17.04.2026.

¶16

The learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the injured witness Heeralal Gurjar has been examined as

[2026:RJ-JP:35568]

[CRLMB-13475/2026]

(2 of 3)

PW-1 and he in his examination has not made any specific allegation against the present petitioner with regard to causing gun shot injury to him. He further submits that both the injuries are on the right forearm and not on the vital part of the body of the injured. He also submits that the petitioner is in custody since 08.07.2025 and other co-accused, who have also been shown along with the present petitioner, have already been enlarged on bail. He further submits that the trial of the case is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, the accused-petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶21

The learned Public Prosecutor, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, has vehemently opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there are many other criminal cases pending against the present petitioner.

¶22

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant and also perused the material made available on record.

¶23

Co-accused namely; Rajesh Gurjar and Sachin Urf Chhigu, have already been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶24

Having considered the fact that no specific overt act has been assigned to the present petitioner in the statement of the injured witness PW-1 and so also to maintain the parity, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits

[2026:RJ-JP:35568]

[CRLMB-13475/2026]

(3 of 3)

of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accusedpetitioner on bail.

¶29

Accordingly, this second bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter be transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶30

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶31

5/ARTI SHARMA

Tejpal @ Kalu S/O Girdhari v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejpal @ Kalu S/O Girdhari 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