Kishan Lal Yadav Son of Shri Sohan Lal Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

[2026:RJ-JP:9397]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 2032/2026

Kishan Lal Yadav Son Of Shri Sohan Lal Yadav, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Village Mau, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar ( At Present Accused Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP For Complainant(s) : Mr. Heera Lal Prajapati

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶11

Order

¶12

05/03/2026

¶13

This second bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.253/2025 registered at Police Station Chomu, District Jaipur West (Raj.) for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) & 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter.

¶14

The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 07.01.2026 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail before the learned trial Court under the provision of Section 480(6) of BNSS (corresponding to Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C.). Thereafter, bail application was filed by the petitioner before the learned trial Court, however, same was dismissed vide order dated 12.01.2026.

(2 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:9397]

[CRLMB-2032/2026]

Subsequently, the petitioner preferred second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS before the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Headquarter Chomu however, same was also dismissed vide order dated 21.01.2026. Thus, this second bail application has been preferred.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. He submits that charges were framed against the petitioner by the learned Magistrate on 17.10.2025 and first date for recording the prosecution witnesses was fixed as 30.10.2025. Counsel submits that four months have passed however, till date, only 4 witnesses have been examined out of 12 cited prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that the trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that another FIR No. 431/2025 was lodged against the petitioner at Police Station Chomu, District Jaipur (West) by the father-in-law of complainant wherein benefit of bail has already been granted to the petitioner by the coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.12.2025. Counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 15.06.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner is a habitual offender as apart from this case, 4 other cases of similar nature have been registered against him therefore, benefit

(3 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:9397]

[CRLMB-2032/2026]

of bail should not be granted to him.

¶25

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in FIR No.112/2013 registered at Police Station Chomu, District Jaipur West, petitioner has been acquitted after facing a fullfledged trial.

¶26

I have considered the contentions.

¶27

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, as also the fact that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate, so also considering the provision of Section 480(6) of BNSS (corresponding to Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C.) and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the second bail application.

¶28

This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Kishan Lal Yadav Son Of Shri Sohan Lal Yadav shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶29

Considering the criminal antecedents of the accusedpetitioner, it is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not

(4 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:9397]

[CRLMB-2032/2026]

involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till conclusion of the trial.

¶34

Concerned SHO shall enter attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard.

¶35

If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court.

¶36

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance.

¶37

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

¶38

Complainant would be at liberty to seek cancellation of this bail application before this Court if statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the acquittal in FIR No.112/2013 registered at Police Station Chomu, District Jaipur West is found to be false/incorrect.

¶39

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶40

GAUTAM JAIN /55

Kishan Lal Yadav Son of Shri Sohan Lal Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishan Lal Yadav Son of Shri Sohan Lal Yadav 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra S/O Girdharilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Suryakant Gupta S/O Shambudayal Vs State of Rajasthan

Brajvardhan S/O Shri Rambabu Vs State of Rajasthan

Sharafat Khan S/O Shri Inayat Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Lokesh Kumar Meena S/O Shri Ghanshyam Prasad Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan

Radhika Kataria W/O Aman Choudhary, Vs State of Rajasthan