Allowed

Dinesh Ranwa S/O Rajendra Singh Ranwa v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Apr 2026CRLMB/2018/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed bail for the accused-petitioner arrested in connection with an FIR alleging death and injuries caused by high-speed driving. The court observed no criminal antecedents and that trial would take time, deeming it just to enlarge the petitioner on bail with a personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Accused-petitioner enlarged on bail conditioned upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Judge.

Dinesh Ranwa S/O Rajendra Singh Ranwa Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:15214]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2018/2026

¶4

Dinesh Ranwa S/o Rajendra Singh Ranwa, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Dhani Ranwa, Police Station Dudhwa Khara, District Churu, At Present Resident Of Flat No. F-147 Kirtinagar, Mangyawas, Police Station Narayan Vihar, Jaipur. (Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Anshuman Saxena with
	Mr. Omprakash Chaudhary
	Mr. Heera Lal Prajapati
	Mr. Sagar Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. VijaySingh Yadav,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order

¶11

10/04/2026

¶12

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 14/2026 registered at Police Station Patrakar Colony District Jaipur City (South) for the offences under Sections 105, 115(2), 238, 249 and 3(5) of BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is alleged in the charge-sheet that the petitioner, while driving an Audi car, drove at a high speed and caused the death of one person, as well as caused simple and grievous injuries to 14 other persons. It is further contended that the prosecution has failed to

[2026:RJ-JP:15214]

[CRLMB-2018/2026]

(2 of 4)

establish, even prima facie, that the petitioner was driving the said vehicle at the relevant time. No substantive evidence has been placed on record to support the allegations that the petitioner was in control of the said vehicle. It is also submitted that neither any test identification parade was conducted, nor has any CCTV footage been produced to corroborate the prosecution’s version. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of co-accused persons, who were apprehended at the spot, and on the assumption arising from the alleged possession of the vehicle by the petitioner. It is also contended that the charge-sheet has already been filed and there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since 18.01.2026, and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude.

¶17

In support of the bail application, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Sidharth Mehria vs. State of Rajasthan (decided on 04.10.2016), wherein, in a case involving an accident resulting in the death of three persons and injuries to others, the accused was granted bail. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the petitioner, being in possession of the said vehicle and its driver, drove the same at a high speed, resulting in the death of one person and injuries to 14 others. It is further contended that two persons, who were co-passengers in the Audi card, were apprehended at

(3 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:15214]

[CRLMB-2018/2026]

the place of occurrence and during the course of investigation, they disclosed the name of the petitioner. It is submitted that in investigation it was found that the said vehicle had been sold to the petitioner through an agency, namely M/s GO Exotic Private Limited. The investigating agency has also collected relevant documents, including Forms Nos. 28, 29, and 35, along with the bank NOC and receipt, all bearing the signatures of the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the accident occurred on 09.01.2026 and the petitioner remained absconding for a period of ten days and did not report the matter to the concerned police station. The co-accused persons apprehended at the spot also disclosed the petitioner’s involvement. It is also contended that the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS clearly indicate that the Audi car was being driven at a high speed at the time of the incident. Thus, there is sufficient material available on record to prima facie establish that the petitioner was driving the vehicle. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances the bail application deserves to be dismissed.

¶22

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶23

Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and taking into account the fact that the accusedpetitioner has been in custody since 18.01.2026, and that the trial of the case is likely to take considerable time. The charge-sheet has already been filed before the concerned Court and comprises voluminous evidence. It is also noted that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner, without expressing any opinion

[2026:RJ-JP:15214]

[CRLMB-2018/2026]

(4 of 4)

on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶28

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Dinesh Ranwa S/o Rajendra Singh Ranwa, in connection with FIR No. 14/2026 registered at Police Station Patrakar Colony District Jaipur City (South) shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a 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 his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶29

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶30

ashu /30

Dinesh Ranwa S/O Rajendra Singh Ranwa v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Ranwa S/O Rajendra Singh Ranwa v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepak Bawariya @ Kochya S/O Shri Ramkaran @ Karan Bawariya Vs State of Rajasthan

Vimlesh Meena S/O Gangasahay Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepu S/O Bhuraram Vs State of Rajasthan

Krishan Meena S/O Hanuman Sahay Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Bansilal Urf Prince S/O Shri Shankararam Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra Kumar S/O Shri Pooran Mal Vs State of Rajasthan