Dismissed¶23

Sumit Sangat S/O Pintu Sangat v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Apr 2026CRLMB/1925/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan HC Jaipur; bail under S.483 BNSS refused; FIR 123/2025 PS Kishorepura Kota City; offences under BNS 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 126(2), 3(5) and Arms Act 4/25; life-threatening lumbar-region injury attributed to petitioner Sumit Sangat; identification parade; eight criminal antecedents, five similar; offence committed during currency of earlier bail; parity with co-accused Sumit Tanwar (bail dated 16.01.2026, S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Appln. 16924/2025) rejected; application dismissed on 01/04/2026 by Justice Sangeeta Sharma; observations limited to bail stage.

What did the court decide?

The case involves multiple blows, and the life-threatening injury on the vital lumbar region of the injured was attributed to the petitioner, showing an intention to kill the injured. ¶19

Sumit Sangat S/O Pintu Sangat Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused-petitioner, arraigned in FIR No. 123/2025 of PS Kishorepura, Kota City (offences under Ss.109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 126(2) & 3(5) BNS and 4/25 Arms Act), should be enlarged on bail under Section 483 of BNSS. +1 more

¶13

Court's answer

The case involves multiple blows, and the life-threatening injury on the vital lumbar region of the injured was attributed to the petitioner, showing an intention to kill the injured.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's bail was also refused because eight other criminal cases stand registered against him, he committed another offence during the currency of bail in those cases, and five of those eight cases are similar to the present case.

¶19

Key takeaways

Parity with co-accused Sumit Tanwar was rejected: Tanwar's bail was allowed solely because the injured stated during trial that Tanwar inflicted no injury on him, a basis unavailable to the petitioner, who was identified as the assailant.ratio¶19
Without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, the Court did not deem it fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail refused (S.483 BNSS) — S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1925/2026, decided 01/04/2026 by Sangeeta Sharma, J (Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench). Arising from FIR No. 123/2025, PS Kishorepura, Kota City; charge-sheet under Ss.109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 126(2) & 3(5) BNS and 4/25 Arms Act. The Court noted that during trial the injured, Abhishek, attributed the life-threatening injury (knife blows to back and wrist; fatal blow to the lumbar region) to the petitioner, who was rightly identified in an identification parade, evidencing intention to kill. The petitioner also has eight other criminal cases — five of them similar to the present case — and committed an offence during the currency of bail in those cases. Parity with co-accused Sumit Tanwar (enlarged on bail on 16.01.2026 in S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 16924/2025) was rejected, as Tanwar's release rested solely on the injured's categorical statement that Tanwar inflicted no injury. Bail application dismissed without expressing any opinion on merits; observations confined to the bail application only.

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:13653]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1925/2026

¶4

Sumit Sangat S/o Pintu Sangat, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Old Sabarmati Colony Police Thana Kaithunipole Kota City Rajasthan. (At Present Confined At Central Jail Kota).

¶5

----Accused-Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

¶11

Order

¶12

01/04/2026

¶13

This bail application has been filed on behalf of the accusedpetitioner under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with FIR No. 123/2025 registered at Police Station Kishorepura, District Kota City for the offence(s) under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109(1) & 3(5) BNS, in which charge-sheet has been submitted under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 126(2) & 3(5) of BNS and 4/25 of Arms Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; charge-sheet has already been filed; He further submits that petitioner is behind the bars since long; co-accused person Sumit Tanwar has already been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 16.01.2026 in S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No.

[2026:RJ-JP:13653]

[CRLMB-1925/2026]

(2 of 3)

16924/2025 and his case is of similar nature ; trial will take its own time, so no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars and, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be granted the benefit of bail under Section 483 of BNSS.

¶19

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that there are eight other criminal antecedents instituted against the accused-petitioner. 4. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by both the parties, and considering the fact that during trial, injured Abhishek has stated that his life-threatening injury was not caused by Sumit Tanwar, and the other person named Sumit stabbed him by knife on his back and wrist, and he has rightly identified the accused-petitioner in identification parade. It is a case of multiple blows and the lifethreatening injury was said to be caused by the petitioner on the vital part i.e. lumbar region of the injured, which shows that the petitioner had an intention to kill the injured and apart from this, eight other criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner and during the currency of bail in those cases, other offence has been committed by the petitioner and it is pertinent to mention that five criminal cases out of eight are similar to the present case. However, so far as the other co-accused, Sumit Tanwar, is concerned, his bail application has been allowed solely on the ground that during trial the injured has categorically stated that Sumit Tanwar has not inflicted any injury on him. Hence, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, does not deem it fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

[2026:RJ-JP:13653]

[CRLMB-1925/2026]

(3 of 3)

Accordingly, the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application is dismissed .

¶24

The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.

¶25

(SANGEETA SHARMA),J

¶26

SHIVANI/20

Sumit Sangat S/O Pintu Sangat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumit Sangat S/O Pintu Sangat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tasleem S/O Juhur Vs State of Rajasthan

Robin S/O Ishab @ Chauda Vs State of Rajasthan

Pradeep @ Deepak @ Deepu S/O Balraj @ Brahma Vs State of Rajasthan

Banti @ Bintesh S/O Rambharos Vs State of Rajasthan

Parmanand S/O Shri Gajanand Vs State of Rajasthan

Hanuman S/O Bhairuram Vs the State of Rajasthan