Allowed¶32

Sheeshram S/O Shri Munsi v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Jan 2026CRLMB/153/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted; S.483 BNSS applications; FIR No. 176/2025, P.S. Bari, District Dholpur; offences under Ss.109(1), 309(6), 3(5) BNS; parity with co-accused Hansaram @ Hansa (bailed 18.09.2025); third bail application; custody since 01.05.2025; investigation kept pending under S.193(8) BNSS; no recovery from female petitioner; personal bond Rs.50,000/-, two sureties Rs.25,000/- each; decided 12/01/2026 by Justice Praveer Bhatnagar alongwith connected S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 262/2026 (Lachcho).

What did the court decide?

Both accused-petitioners (Sheeshram and Lachcho) enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No. 176/2025, P.S. Bari, District Dholpur, on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each. ¶32

Sheeshram S/O Shri Munsi Vs the State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the third bail application of accused-petitioner Sheeshram should be allowed, given parity with co-accused Hansaram @ Hansa (enlarged on bail by this court on 18.09.2025) and his prolonged incarceration since 01.05.2025. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

Case of petitioner Sheeshram is not distinguishable from that of co-accused Hansaram @ Hansa, who was enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 18.09.2025.

¶26

Ratio / Principle

Considering the long incarceration of petitioner Sheeshram, his third bail application is allowed.

¶30

Key takeaways

Regarding petitioner Lachcho: there is no allegation that she was present at the place of occurrence, investigation against her was kept pending under Section 193(8) BNSS, and no incriminating material was recovered from her possession; the court therefore found it just and proper to enlarge her on bail.ratio¶31
The bail applications under Section 483 BNSS are allowed; both accused-petitioners to be enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench) allowed the third bail application of Sheeshram on the ground that his case was not distinguishable from co-accused Hansaram @ Hansa, already enlarged on bail by the court vide order dated 18.09.2025, coupled with his long incarceration (in custody since 01.05.2025) and the prospect that trial would take considerable time. Bail was likewise granted to Lachcho on the grounds that there was no allegation she was present at the place of occurrence, investigation against her had been kept pending under Section 193(8) BNSS before her arrest, and no incriminating material was recovered from her possession. Both applications were filed under Section 483 BNSS in relation to FIR No. 176/2025, P.S. Bari, District Dholpur (offence(s) under Sections 109(1), 309(6) and 3(5) of BNS); each petitioner to furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:1173]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 153/2026

¶4

Sheeshram S/o Shri Munsi, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Nidhara, Police Station Badi Sadar, District Dholpur. (At Present Confined In District Jail Dholpur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 262/2026

¶11

Lachcho W/o Munshiram, R/o Nidhara, Thana Badi Sadar, District Dholpur. (At Present Confined In District Jail Dholpur).

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

	Versus
State Of Rajasthan,	Through Pp ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Vikram Singh Mr. NeerajSharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Manvendra Singh,PP

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶15

Order

¶16

12/01/2026

¶17

These instant bail applications have been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioners. The petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No. 176/2025 registered at Police Station Bari, District Dholpur for the offence(s) under Sections 109(1), 309(6) and 3(5) of BNS.

¶18

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is

(2 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:1173]

[CRLMB-153/2026]

contended by counsel for the petitioner-Sheeshram that similarly placed co-accused Hansaram @ Hansa has already been enlarged on bail by this court vide order dated 18.09.2025. The accusedpetitioner is in custody since 01.05.2025 and trial of the case may take considerable time. There was no identification parade from the complainant and no CCTV footage was recovered, therefore, the third bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed.

¶23

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner - Lachcho that she has falsely been implicated in this case solely on the ground that she is mother of co-accused Sheeshram and has nothing to do with the robbery. No incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner's possession and investigation against the petitioner was kept pending under Section 193(8) of BNSS thereafter the police arrested the petitioner. The accusedpetitioner is in custody since long and trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the bail application of the accusedpetitioner may be allowed.

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶25

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶26

As far as the bail application of the petitioner Sheeshram is concerned co-accused Hansaram @ Hansa has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 18.09.2025 passed by this court and case of the petitioner is not distinguishable from the co-accused. The accused-petitioners are in custody since long and trial of the case may take considerable time. Considering the long incarceration of

[CRLMB-153/2026]

[2026:RJ-JP:1173]

(3 of 3)

the petitioner Sheeshram, the third bail application of the petitioner is allowed.

¶31

As far as petitioner Lachcho is concerned, there is no allegation against her that she was present at the place of occurrence, investigation against the petitioner was kept pending under Section 193(8) BNSS. No incriminating material was recovered from the petitioner's possession, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶32

Accordingly, the bail applications under Section 483 BNSS are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners 1. Sheeshram S/o Shri Munsi, 2. Lachcho W/o Munshiram, in connection with FIR No. 176/2025 registered at Police Station Bari, District Dholpur shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶33

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶34

ashu /9-10

Sheeshram S/O Shri Munsi v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheeshram S/O Shri Munsi v. the 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govind Narayan Sharma S/O Birdichand Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanu Nama Son Ofs Hri Kailash Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajeet Kumar S/O Shri Giriraj Prasad B/C Brahmin Vs State of Rajasthan

Dhanraj S/O Kishanlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Bamboo Khan S/O Shri Supeda @ Sufed Vs State of Rajasthan

Lachcho W/O Munshiram Vs State of Rajasthan