Allowed

Durgashankar S/O Kesrilal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Sept 2026CRLMB/13706/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Bench at Jaipur allowed bail applications filed by four accused persons under Section 483 BNS in a criminal case involving assault and causing of hurt. The petitioners were directed to furnish a personal bond along with two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/ with two sureties of Rs.25,000/ each to Court of learned trial Judge.

Durgashankar S/O Kesrilal Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:35479]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12962/2026 CNR: RJHC020794822026 | URN: CRLMB / 23944U / 2026

¶4

Sunil Son Of Ramswaroop, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Kundanpur, Police Station Sangod District Kota. At Present In Central Jail, Kota.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13706/2026 CNR: RJHC020840672026 | URN: CRLMB / 25415U / 2026

¶11

Durgashankar S/o Kesrilal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Kanganiya, Police Station Sangod, District Kota. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Kota).

¶12

Dilkhush S/o Durgashankar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Kanganiya, Police Station Sangod, District Kota. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Kota).

¶13

----Petitioners

¶14

Versus

¶15

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶16

----Respondent

¶17

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13707/2026 CNR: RJHC020840622026 | URN: CRLMB / 25416U / 2026

¶18

Sunil Raigar S/o Amritlal, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Kundanpur, Police Station Sangod District Kota. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Kota).

¶19

----Petitioner

¶20

Versus

¶21

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶22

----Respondent

¶23

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shivam Sharma with Mr. Ravi Yadav for Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar

(2 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:35479]

[CRLMB-12962/2026]

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP

¶28

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR

¶29

Order

¶30

02/09/2026

¶31

In S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13706/2026, learned counsel for the petitioner-Dilkhush seeks permission to withdraw the bail application with liberty to file a fresh bail application after filing of the charge-sheet.

¶32

Accordingly, the bail application filed by the petitionerDilkhush is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for.

¶33

The petitioners have filed these bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.156/2026 registered at Police Station Sangod, District Kota Rural for offences under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2) and 329(3) of BNS, 2023.

¶34

Since all these bail applications arise out of same FIR, hence, they are being decided by this common order.

¶35

Heard learned counsels for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 6. Learned counsels for the petitioners contend that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in these cases. He further submits that, though there is an allegation against the present petitioners of inflicting a life-threatening injury upon injured Aditya and causing injuries of different nature to injured Harinarayan, Harishankar, Ramkishan and Aditya. However, no specific injury has been attributed to the present petitioners. The injury sustained by Aditya, which has been opined to be dangerous to

[2026:RJ-JP:35479]

[CRLMB-12962/2026]

(3 of 3)

life, has specifically been attributed to co-accused Dilkhush. He further submits that petitioner-Sunil has been in custody since 17.07.2026 having one criminal antecedent; petitionerDurgashankar has been in custody since 20.07.2026 having two criminal antecedents; and petitioner-Sunil Raigar has been in custody since 27.07.2026 having no criminal antecedents. The investigation/trial of the case will take considerable time, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in further custody, consequently, the bail applications deserves to be allowed.

¶40

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail applications of the petitioners. 8. On consideration of the rival submissions and material available on record and in the light of submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as custody period of the petitioners but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, I am inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioners. 9. Consequently, the bail applications under Section 483 B.N.S.S. are allowed and it is directed that the petitioners Sunil S/o Ramswaroop, Durgashankar S/o Kesrilal and Sunil

¶41

Raigar S/o Amritlal be released on bail provided each of them 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 them shall appear before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing till conclusion of the trial.

¶42

(PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶43

63, 65 & 66/Arun

Durgashankar S/O Kesrilal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durgashankar S/O Kesrilal 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