Arun @ Arjun S/O Ramniwas @ Lalaram Vs State of Rajasthan

[2026:RJ-JP:15482]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 4195/2026

Arun @ Arjun S/o Ramniwas @ Lalaram, R/o Mandhan Police Station Mandhan, District Kotputli-Behror. (At Present Lodge At Jail Behror, District Kotputli-Behror).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakad, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶11

Order

¶12

13/04/2026

¶13

This second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Arun @ Arjun S/o Ramniwas @ Lalaram, seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.60/2025 dated 13.03.2025 registered at P.S. Mandhan, District - Kotputli, Behror, for the offence under Sections 308(4) and 351(2) of BNS..

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time.

[2026:RJ-JP:15482]

[CRLMB-4195/2026]

(2 of 4)

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that first bail application of present petitioner was dismissed on 22.08.2025 and now it is second bail application filed after recording of statement of four witnesses. He further submitted that other accused were already granted bail by this Hon'ble Court. He further submitted that the petitioner is in custody for last approximately one year and offence is triable by Magistrate First Class. He further referred provision of 437(6) of Cr.P.C. (corresponding provision Section 480(6) of BNSS, 2023). He also referred the statement of PW-2 Anil Kumar, who is complainant and submitted that there is no direct communication between petitioner and PW-2 Anil Kumar. He further referred the statement of PW-3 Naveen and PW-4 Ram Niwas and submitted that even from the statement of complainant himself and other witnesses nothing is proved against the petitioner, so he is entitled for bail. He also referred judgment in case of Subhelal @ Sushil Sahu Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh reported as 2025 INSC 242 and submitted that where the trial court has not been concluded within a time limit prescribed under the law then the petitioner is entitled for bail. He also referred order dated 09.09.2025 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8987/2025 and submitted that this Hon'ble Court has granted bail to Om Prakash in another case but in identical case.

(3 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:15482]

[CRLMB-4195/2026]

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature.

¶23

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties.

¶24

First bail application of present petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 22.08.2025. The order-sheet dated 09.07.2025 of criminal case no. 31/2025 clearly indicate that except present petitioner all other accused were released on bail. We have considered statement of PW-2 Anil Kumar, PW-3 Naveen and PW-4 Ram Niwas, in particular, their crossexamination and discrepancies as pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner.

¶25

As per record, nine criminal cases were registered against the petitioner wherein one relating to RPGO whereas other relating to IPC. The presence of present petitioner is affirmed in the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 and also in a CCTV footage, submitted to the police during investigation. Undoubtedly, PW-2 was not present when present petitioner came to his place.

¶26

The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicant in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused on bail.

(4 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:15482]

[CRLMB-4195/2026]

Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicant accused at this stage.

¶31

Accordingly, the second application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Arun @ Arjun S/o Ramniwas @ Lalaram, is hereby dismissed.

¶32

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶33

CHETNA BEHRANI /47

Arun @ Arjun S/O Ramniwas @ Lalaram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun @ Arjun S/O Ramniwas @ Lalaram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lokendra Son of Shrichand Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bijendra Kumar Yadav S/O Shri Kishan Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Nimbaram Gurjar S/O Narayan Gurjar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Abbas Ali S/O Joyab Ali Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajay Kumar Gautam S/O Sh. Natthi Lal Vs Secretary to Government, School Education Department

Suman Kumari Daughter of Magturam Vs Principal Secretary to Government