Dismissed¶21

Vikas Kumar Choudhary @ Vikky S/O Shri Hansraj Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Feb 2026CRLMB/2462/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench; S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 2462/2026 ([CRLMB-2462/2026]); decided 10/02/2026 by Ganesh Ram Meena, J.; second bail application under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 dismissed; FIR No. 381/2025, P.S. Samod, District Jaipur Rural; offences under Sections 3(5) and 109(1) BNS, 2023; earlier bail rejected by Trial Court on 03.11.2025; custody since 27.10.2025; chargesheet filed; allegation of jeep striking and dragging injured Chetan about 300 mtrs.; nineteen injuries, seven grievous; multiple fractures; bail refused on gravity and nature of offence.

What did the court decide?

None - the second bail application was dismissed and the petitioner was not enlarged on bail. ¶21

Vikas Kumar Choudhary @ Vikky S/O Shri Hansraj Choudhary… — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None - the second bail application was dismissed and the petitioner was not enlarged on bail.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 should be allowed and the accused-petitioner enlarged on bail in FIR No. 381/2025 (P.S. Samod, District Jaipur Rural) for offences under Sections 3(5) and 109(1) of BNS, 2023, notwithstanding the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and the injuries caused to the injured.

¶20

Court's answer

Taking into consideration the overall facts of the case, the material available on record, the nature and number of injuries sustained by the injured Chetan (per the challan papers, nineteen injuries of which seven were grievous, with multiple fractures) and the manner in which the accused-petitioner committed the offences, this Court was not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal bail - second application under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 by accused Vikas Kumar Choudhary @ Vikky in FIR No. 381/2025, P.S. Samod, District Jaipur Rural, for offences punishable under Sections 3(5) and 109(1) of BNS, 2023; his earlier bail application had been dismissed by the Trial Court on 03.11.2025. Counsel for the petitioner urged that he was in judicial custody since 27.10.2025, that the chargesheet stood filed after completion of investigation, that no injury to the injured Chetan was opined dangerous to life, and that the trial was likely to take considerable time. On perusal of the challan papers, the Court recorded that the jeep allegedly struck the motorcycle ridden by the injured from behind, ran over him and dragged him along a 300 mtrs. road; the injury report showed nineteen injuries, seven of them grievous, including fractures of the right fibula, ribs, sacrum, bilateral pubic rami and acetabula with perisplenic collection. Considering the overall facts, the material on record, the nature and number of injuries and the manner in which the offences were committed, the Court was not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail and dismissed the bail application. (Decided 10/02/2026 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ganesh Ram Meena.)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:6543]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 2462/2026

¶4

Vikas Kumar Choudhary @ Vikky S/o Shri Hansraj Choudhary, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Badi Dhani, Village Samarpura, P.s. Samod, District Jaipur. (Accused Petitioner Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Aradhana Swami For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order

¶11

10/02/2026

¶12

The second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No. 381/2025 registered at Police Station Samod, District Jaipur Rural for offences punishable under Sections 3(5) and 109(1) of BNS, 2023 in F.I.R. and against the order dated 03.11.2025 whereby learned Trial Court dismissed the bail application filed by the accused-petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 109(1) of BNS, 2023.

¶13

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner is in judicial custody since 27.10.2025 and Police after completion of investigation, has submitted chargesheet in the matter. She further submits that none of the injury sustained by the injured Chetan has been opined to be dangerous to life. Counsel also submits that the trial of the case is likely to

(2 of 2)

[2026:RJ-JP:6543]

[CRLMB-2462/2026]

take considerable time to conclude, therefore, accused-petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶18

Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and submits that the manner in which the offence has been committed by the petitioner is of very serious nature.

¶19

On perusal of the challan papers it is revealed that, when the injured Chetan was going on a motorcycle, the accusedpetitioner hit by him a jeep from the back side and also run the jeep over the injured Chetan and dragged him to a 300 mtrs. road. As per injury report, injured Chetan is said to have sustained as many as nineteen injuries, out of which seven injuries have been found to be grievous in nature. Injured Chetan said to have sustained fracture in upper one-third of right fibula bone, fracture of right third and forth rib, left six and seven ribs. He has also sustained fracture of body and ala of left side sacrum. He said to have sustained fracture of bilateral superior and inferior pubic rami, displaced fracture of left acetabulum, chip fracture of right acetabulum with perisplenic collection.

¶20

Taking into consideration overall facts of the case, material available on record and so also the nature and number of injuries sustained by injured Chetan and the manner in which the accused-petitioner has committed the offences, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶21

Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed.

¶22

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶23

SHRUTI SHARMA /2

Vikas Kumar Choudhary @ Vikky S/O Shri Hansraj Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikas Kumar Choudhary @ Vikky S/O Shri Hansraj Choudhary 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

Piyush Son of Shri Ramdev Singh Vs the Chief Information Commissioner

Shree Dhanraj Suman Son of Shri Gopi Lal Suman Vs Public Information Officer and Executive Officer

Trilok Patni, S/O Shri Nirmal Kumar Jain Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Savita Devi Vs Ramdayal Bairwa S/O Ramesh Chand Bairwa

Punam Devi W/O Late Vijayveer D/O Mahendra Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dharmendra Singh Dhaka Son of Shri Sarawan Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan