Shyoram S/O Raju Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:1302]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 374/2026

¶4

Lala S/o Shri Raju, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Satiya Ki Dhani, Rupangarh, Police Station Rupangarh, District Ajmer. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer)

¶5

Deewan S/o Shri Raju, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Satiya Ki Dhani, Rupangarh, Police Station Rupangarh, District Ajmer. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer)

¶6

Jeevanram Satiya S/o Shri Shyoram Satiya, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Satiya Ki Dhani, Rupangarh, Police Station Rupangarh, District Ajmer. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer)

¶7

Laxman Satiya S/o Shri Shyoram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Satiya Ki Dhani, Rupangarh, Police Station Rupangarh, District Ajmer. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer)

¶8

----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

Connected With

¶13

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 375/2026

¶14

Shyoram S/o Raju, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Satiya Ki Dhani, Rupangarh, Police Station Rupangarh, District Ajmer. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer)

¶15

Kana S/o Shri Lala, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Satiya Ki Dhani, Rupangarh, Police Station Rupangarh, District Ajmer. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer)

¶16

----Petitioners

¶17

Versus

¶18

State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar with Ms. Vijay Laxmi Jangid

¶21

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, Public Prosecutor Mr. Devanshu Sharma for complainant

(2 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:1302]

[CRLMB-374/2026]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶26

Order

¶27

13/01/2026

¶28

These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No.142/2025 registered at Police Station Rupangarh, District Ajmer for the offence under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2) 74 & 331(6) of BNS, 2023.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset seeks permission of this Court to withdraw the bail application of the accused-petitioner, namely, Kana (petitioner No.2 in CRLMB No.375/2026).

¶30

Accordingly, the bail application No.375/2026 qua the accused-petitioner No.2-Kana S/o Shri Lala is dismissed as withdrawn at this stage.

¶31

As regards the bail applications of other accused persons are concerned, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per contents of the FIR, no specific overt act has been assigned to any of the accused-petitioners. He further submits that from the complainant side three persons have sustained injuries in the incident and only one injury sustained by the injured-Babita has been opined to be dangerous to life.

¶32

It is also submitted that there are cross-cases in between the parties and the present case has been lodged implicating all the family members as an accused because there was previous enmity due to some land dispute in between the parties.

(3 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:1302]

[CRLMB-374/2026]

He also submits that the accused-petitioners are in custody since 16.12.2025.

¶37

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail applications and states that the accused-petitioners were involved in the incident wherein, one of the injured has sustained injury which is opined to be dangerous to life.

¶38

Considered the submissions made at bar.

¶39

One member of the complainant party, namely, Babita has sustained an injury which is opined to be dangerous to life and the rest of the injuries sustained by the complainant party were found to be simple in nature. The injury opined to be dangerous to life has been attributed to the accused-petitioner No.2-Kana S/o Shri Lala whose bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn.

¶40

Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that there are cross-cases in between the parties because of some land dispute and the accused-petitioners are in custody since 16.12.2025, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail.

¶41

Accordingly, these bail applications under Section 483 BNSS are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners named above except accused-petitioner No.2-Kana S/o Shri Lala shall be enlarged on bail provided, each of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- together with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for

(4 of 4)

[CRLMB-374/2026]

[2026:RJ-JP:1302]

their appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of

¶46

hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶47

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J