Umrao Mal S/O Shri Dulha Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

[2026:RJ-JP:25459]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1495/2026 URN: CRLMB / 2679U / 2026

Umrao Mal S/o Shri Dulha Ram, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Polt No. 100, Shiv Shakti Nagar Currently Tenant Of Polt No. 101, House No. 205, Girraj Nagar, Mansarover, Police Station Muhana, District Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶5

(At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Center Jail Bharatpur).

¶6

---Accused-Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1955/2026 URN: CRLMB / 3431U / 2026

¶12

Krishan Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Mukesh Chand Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Dahina Village, Police Station Gahnoli Mod, Presently Residing At G-21, Udv Apartment, Shivdaspura, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶13

(At Present Confined In Central Jail, Bharatpur).

¶14

---Accused-Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶17

----Respondent

¶18

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2459/2026 URN: CRLMB / 4372U / 2026

¶19

Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Ashok Kumar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Etamada Road Bhusawar, Police Station Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.).

¶20

(Presently Confined At District Jail Bharatpur).

¶21

---Accused-Petitioner

¶22

Versus

¶23

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶24

----Respondent

¶25

[2026:RJ-JP:25459]	(2 of 5) [CRLMB-1495/2026]
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Anmol Dhakar with Mr. J P Gupta, Mr. Achin Singhal Mr. J K Moolchandani Mr. Ram Awatar Meena Mr. Deepak Bishnoi, Mr. Arpit Gupta on behalf of Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl. G.A.

¶26

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order

¶27

08/07/2026

¶28

The present bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 against the orders dated 24.12.2025 & 07.01.2026, respectively passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, in Bail Application Nos. 646/2026 and 656/2025 & 07/2026 respectively, whereby the bail applications of the petitioners were rejected in connection with F.I.R. No.394/2025, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Bharatpur for the offences under Sections 3, 5, 21, 23 of the Prohibition of Irregular Deposit Scheme Act, 2019; Section 3,4 of the Price Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Sections 318(4) and 112(2) of the BNS, 2023.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been in custody since 11.12.2025. The petitioners have not been named in the F.I.R. He further submits that except for the offence under Section 3 of the Prohibition of Irregular Deposit Schemes Act, 2019, all the remaining offences are triable by the Magistrate. Learned counsel contends that the chargesheet has already been filed.

[2026:RJ-JP:25459]

[CRLMB-1495/2026]

(3 of 5)

Learned counsel for the petitioners further draws the attention of this Court to the statement of the complainant, Rajendra Singh. He submits that, in his statement before the Court, the complainant has not named any of the present petitioners as having committed any offence. He further submits that an earlier F.I.R. involving offences of a similar nature was registered at Police Station Mathura Gate, District Bharatpur, bearing F.I.R. No. 703/2025. In the said F.I.R., the accusedpetitioners have already been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16814/2025 and other connected matters vide order dated 22.06.2026.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that, as per the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, the prosecution has cited 11 witnesses. However, since the arrest of the petitioners on 11.12.2025, only three witnesses have been examined. He submits that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a considerable amount of time. Therefore, he prays that the petitioners be enlarged on bail. He further submits that, apart from F.I.R. No. 703/2025 and the present F.I.R., there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners involving offences of a similar nature or of any other nature.

¶35

Learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposes the present bail applications.

¶36

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the material available on record.

[2026:RJ-JP:25459]

[CRLMB-1495/2026]

(4 of 5)

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and upon a consideration the arguments raised particular the fact, that the petitioners are in custody since 11.12.2025 for almost more than seven (7) months, the charge-sheet has already been filed, and only three witnesses have been examined. The Complainant in his statement before the Court has neither named the present petitioners nor were they named in the F.I.R.; trial will take considerable time. Furthermore, the petitioners have already been enlarged on bail in the main F.I.R. bearing No. 703/2025, which was registered by the police authorities and the present F.I.R. appears to be an offshoot of the said F.I.R., lodged by a victim who is also a victim in the F.I.R. No. 703/2025, therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

¶41

Consequently, the bail applications are allowed . It is ordered that the accused-petitioners namely- (i) Umrao Mal S/o Shri Dulha Ram, (ii) Krishan Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Mukesh Chand Sharma & (iii) Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Ashok Kumar arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.394/2025, Police Station Kotwali, District Bharatpur, shall be released on bail; provided each of them furnish a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/(Rs. One Lakh Only) with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) each, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, with the stipulation that they shall appear before the said Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so until completion of the trial, subject to the following conditions:

¶42

(i) The petitioners shall not leave country without the permission of the Court;

¶43

(5 of 5) [CRLMB-1495/2026]

¶44

[2026:RJ-JP:25459]

¶45

(ii) The petitioners shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected;

¶46

(iii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; and

¶47

(iv) The accused-petitioners shall mark his presence before the concerned police station once in a month as fixed by the Investigating Officer and a register shall be maintained for the same by Investigating Officer.

¶48

(v) In case of any change of residential address, the accused-petitioners shall immediately inform the Investigating Officer as well as the trial Court.

¶49

(BIPIN GUPTA),J

¶50

11-13/KRATIKA

Umrao Mal S/O Shri Dulha Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umrao Mal S/O Shri Dulha Ram 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

Shankar S/O Bhagchand Vs State of Rajasthan

Ansar S/O Gafur Vs State of Rajasthan

Aasif S/O Sarfu Vs State of Rajasthan

Krishan Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Mukesh Chand Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Kumar S/O Shri Ashok Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sunil Kumar S/O Deshraj Vs State of Rajasthan