Allowed

Ramotar @ Rinku S/O Shri Dharm Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Apr 2026CRLMB/3240/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail applications by two accused in FIR No.296/2023 for offences including unlawful assembly, assault and theft, claiming parity with co-accused granted bail. Court allowed the applications without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000 each with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each, subject to appearance at trial.

Ramotar @ Rinku S/O Shri Dharm Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:14260]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3240/2026

¶4

Ramotar @ Rinku S/o Shri Dharm Singh, R/o Bagriya Ki Dhani, Torda Dhata, Sikandra, District Dausa (Raj.) (At Present Accused Is Confined In The Jail Hindoun).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3423/2026 Vikramsingh S/o Shri Ramroop, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Tanwar Ki Dhani, Torda Ps Sikandra, District Dausa (Raj.) (At Present Accused Is Confined In The Sub Jail Hindoun)

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Babu Lal Nasuna
	Mr.	Bholu Ram Jat
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP
For Complainant	: Mr.	Abdul Rahim Khan

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR

¶17

Order

¶18

07/04/2026

¶19

The petitioners have filed these bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.296/2023 registered at Police Station Nadoti, District Karauli for offences under Sections 143, 341, 323, 447, 354, 379 and 506 of IPC.

¶20

Since both these bail applications arise out of common FIR,

¶21

hence, they are being decided by this common order.

[2026:RJ-JP:14260]

[CRLMB-3240/2026]

(2 of 3)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in these cases. He further submits that though the names of the petitioners have been mentioned in the FIR but no specific act has been attributed to them. It is also submitted that similarly placed co-accused persons have already been granted bail by the Coordinate Benches of this Hon’ble Court as well as by the trial court. Specifically, co-accused Vikash Singh, Lokesh, Ajeet, Manoj @ Jhandu, Lakhansingh, and Smt. Laxma were enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 03.09.2025. Further, co-accused Pukhraj, Smt. Kavita, and Smt. Surjya were granted bail on 01.04.2025, while coaccused Satveer was enlarged on bail on 25.10.2024. Co-accused Ramkhiladi, Sardar, and Dinesh were granted bail on 17.12.2024, and another co-accused, Dinesh, was enlarged on bail on 12.02.2025. Additionally, co-accused Deshraj has been granted bail by the learned trial Court on 23.02.2026. Petitioner-Ramotar @ Rinku is behind the bars since 08.02.2026 and petitionerVikramsingh is behind the bars since 10.02.2026. The trial of the case will take considerable time and on the ground of parity as well as the fact that no specific injury attributed to them, the bail applications of the petitioners deserves to be allowed.

¶27

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and counsel for the complainant has submitted that the investigation is still pending and the charge-sheet has not been filed. It is further

(3 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:14260]

[CRLMB-3240/2026]

submitted that other similarly situated co-accused persons were enlarged on bail after the filing of the charge-sheet.

¶32

On consideration of the rival submissions and material available on record and in the light of submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, I am inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioners.

¶33

Consequently, the bail applications under Section 483 B.N.S.S. are allowed and it is directed that the petitioners Ramotar @ Rinku S/o Shri Dharm Singh and Vikramsingh S/o Shri Ramroop, be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that each of them shall appear before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing till conclusion of the trial.

¶34

(PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶35

Arun/28-29

Ramotar @ Rinku S/O Shri Dharm Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramotar @ Rinku S/O Shri Dharm Singh 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

Gajendra S/O Hargyan Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramkesh S/O Naresh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dharmendra S/O Shri Kishan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sannu Khan S/O Hussain Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Yogesh Kumar Bairwa S/O Prabhulal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Kunwar Gurjar S/O Late Ram Karan Vs State of Rajasthan