Partly allowed

Nikhil Yadav S/O Shri Kishanlal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Feb 2026CRLMB/1662/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Jaipur disposed of two bail applications. The Court granted bail to Nikhil Yadav citing identical circumstances to a coordinate bench and material issues, while dismissing Amar Dagar's application due to his role as a main assailant per post-mortem evidence, despite the hostile turn of the eyewitness.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed to Nikhil Yadav on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of like amount. Bail application of Amar Dagar dismissed.

Nikhil Yadav S/O Shri Kishanlal Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:6341]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 1662/2026

¶4

Nikhil Yadav S/o Shri Kishanlal, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Yadav Mohalla Ramganjmandi, Police Station Ramganjmandi, District Kota Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In District Jail Kota).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 2445/2026 Amar Dagar S/o Shri Kalulal, R/o Behind Sabji Mandi, Ramganjmandi, P.s. Ramganj Mandi, District Kota (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Kota).

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Gurjar Mr. J.R. Choudhary Mr. MI Abassi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶17

Order

¶18

10/02/2026

¶19

These bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS are filed by the applicants-accused Nikhil Yadav S/o Shri Kishanlal and Amar Dagar S/o Shri Kalulal, seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.118/2025 dated 28.03.2025 at P.S. Ramganjmandi District – Kota Rural, for

[2026:RJ-JP:6341]

[CRLMB-1662/2026]

(2 of 6)

the offence under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 110, 3(5) of BNS.

¶24

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against them is complete and they are no more required in investigation. He further submits that there is no chance of fleeing by applicants accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The applicants do not have any criminal antecedents. He also submits that the applicants undertake not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time.

¶25

Learned counsel for petitioner-accused Nikhil Yadav submitted that the first bail application of the present petitioner was dismissed on 17.9.2025, and now the statements of Naveen, who is the complainant, and police personnel Mangilal have been recorded by the trial court. He further submitted that PW-2 Naveen has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. He also referred to the statement of PW-1 Mangilal and submitted that even in the statement of the deceased, name of the present petitioner is not mentioned. Lastly, he submitted that the case of the present petitioner is identical to that of Karan @ Kanha, who was granted bail by this Hon’ble Court on 27.1.2026.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner Amar Dagar also submitted that the first bail application of the present petitioner was dismissed on 18.08.2025, and since then, the statements of PW-1 Mangilal and PW-2 Naveen

[2026:RJ-JP:6341]

[CRLMB-1662/2026]

(3 of 6)

were recorded by the trial court. He further submitted that as per the version of the FIR, Karan @ Kanha assaulted the deceased with a knife, and due to the stab injuries caused by Karan @ Kanha, the deceased succumbed to injuries. He further referred to the statement of PW-2 Naveen Mewara and submitted that he has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that the version of Naveen Mewara is not trustworthy. He also submitted that PW-1 Mangilal recorded the statement of the deceased after two days of the incident, but before recording the statement, neither did he procure the certificate nor did he get it signed by the injured. He also referred to the discrepancies and submitted that the petitioner was not charged even for stab assault by the police in its charge-sheet. Lastly, he submitted that the case of the present petitioner is identical to that of Karan @ Kanha.

¶31

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail applications and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature.

¶32

Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties.

¶33

On basis of report lodged by Naveen about incident of 27.03.2025 naming Kanha, Mukesh, Nikhil and others for assault upon Deepak and inflicting blow from knife by Kahna, the matter is registered and investigated. During investigation statement of injured Deepak was recorded

[2026:RJ-JP:6341]

[CRLMB-1662/2026]

(4 of 6)

under Section 180 of BNSS and complainant Naveen under Section 180 of BNSS. During treatment, injured Deepak has expired and on 03.04.2025 post mortem was conducted. During investigation, police has recorded statement of Deepak under Section 180 of BNSS but recorded statement of Naveen on 03.04.2025 after death of Deepak and Police has filed a charge-sheet against Amar Dagar, Mukesh Verma, Nikhil Yadav and Karan @ Kanha.

¶38

Complainant, who is eyewitness (Naveen Mewara) was examined as PW-2 before the trial court, but he was declared hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. The injured was taken to the hospital and his statement under Section 180 of BNSS was recorded by PW-1 Mangilal (the then ASI), and in his statement, he has stated that he recorded the statement of injured Deepak and in his statement Deepak has named Amar as the person who assaulted him with a knife.

¶39

The first bail application of Amar Dagar was dismissed on 18.08.2025 on merits, whereas the bail application of Nikhil Yadav was dismissed as withdrawn on 17.09.2025. After recording the statements of PW-1 Mangilal (ASI) and PW-2 Naveen Mehwara, we considered the bail application of Karan @ Kanha and allowed the same on 27.01.2026. The material on record indicates that another accused, Mukesh Verma, was granted bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 29.07.2025. The initial report was registered by PW-2 Naveen Mehwara alleging assault by Karan @ Kanha with the assistance of others, but during investigation, PW-1 Mangilal

(5 of 6)

[2026:RJ-JP:6341]

[CRLMB-1662/2026]

recorded the statement of injured Deepak under Section 180 of the BNSS, and injured Deepak, while admitted in the hospital, named petitioner Amar Dagar for inflicting a deadly blow with a knife.

¶44

While considering the bail application, we have observed, shoddy investigation in the matter in particular nonrecording of the statement of Naveen till 03.04.2025 and that the statement was recorded only after the death of Deepak. PW-2 Naveen Mewara has turned hostile but under the statement recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS by PW-1, the deceased has named petitioner Amar Dagar as the main assailant. Therefore, I am of the considered view that Amar Dagar is not entitled to be released on bail, whereas the case of accused Nikhil Yadav is identical to that of Karan @ Kanha, and he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.

¶45

Upon hearing the arguments and perusing the record, we have found that the applicant-accused- Nikhil Yadav is no more required in the investigation and he is in custody for quite some time. The further proceedings will take their own time, therefore, looking to the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the applicant-accused- Nikhil Yadav.

¶46

Thus, the second bail application filed on behalf of applicantaccused Nikhil Yadav , is hereby allowed and the applicantaccused is ordered to be released on bail with condition that the petitioner would furnish a personal bond of ₹50,000/-

(6 of 6)

[2026:RJ-JP:6341]

[CRLMB-1662/2026]

with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the following conditions:-

¶51

(i) The applicant-accused shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner.

¶52

(ii) The applicant-accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the Law.

¶53

(iii) The applicant-accused shall attend the hearing of the Trial Court on the date fixed by the Trial court or as and when asked to appear before the Trial Court.

¶54

(iv) In case of any violation of above conditions, the bail granted to the applicant-accused shall be liable to be canceled.

¶55

Accordingly, the second application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Amar Dagar is hereby dismissed.

¶56

The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court through E-mail.

¶57

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶58

CHETNA BEHRANI /21-22

Nikhil Yadav S/O Shri Kishanlal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhil Yadav S/O Shri Kishanlal 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

Purushottam Meena S/O Late Shri Moolchand Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Indra Choudhary D/O Sh. Banwari Lal Choudhary Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sushma Singh D/O Badan Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bani Singh S/O Shri Kalyan Lal Vs Director General, Central Reserve Police Force

Smt. Lali Devi W/O Late Shri Chhitar Mal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohanlal Alias Munna S/O Shri Shobharam Vs State of Rajasthan