Prahlad @ Hadiya S/O Bhura Vs State of Rajasthan

[2026:RJ-JP:13807]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 457/2026

Prahlad @ Hadiya S/o Bhura, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Rajpur Bada, Police Station Tahla, District Alwar. (At Present Confined In District Jail Gangapur City).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1953/2026

¶11

Arif Son Of Jaan Mohammad, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Padasali, Police Station Tijara, District Khairthal Tijara ( Raj.) ( At Present In Sub Jail Gangapur City)

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4405/2026 Afjal @ Abbal S/o Aneesh, R/o Nawabgarh, Police Station Rojkameo, District Nuhun, Haryana. (At Present In Sub District Jail Dausa)

¶17

----Petitioner

¶18

Versus

¶19

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶20

----Respondent

¶21

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Umashasnker Pandey, Mr. Lakhan Singh Meena, Mr. Abhishek Jhinganiya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP

¶22

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order

¶23

02/04/2026

¶24

These instant bail applications have been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioners. The petitioners have

[2026:RJ-JP:13807]

[CRLMB-457/2026]

(2 of 4)

been arrested in connection with FIR No.24/2025 registered at Police Station Udei Mod, District Sawai Madhopur for the offence(s) under Sections 305(a), 331(4) and 334(1) of BNS.

¶29

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that there is no substantive evidence available on record indicating the fact that the petitioners along with the other co-accused committed robbery of an ATM counter by cutting it with a gas cutter machine and robbed Rs.3,95,600/-. It is also contended that Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 12.03.2026 has already enlarged the other similarly placed co-accused Alijan on bail and the case of the petitioners are not distinguishable from that of the other co-accused. It is further contended that the accused-petitioners are in custody since long, the trial of the case may take considerable time and charge-sheet has already been submitted, therefore, these bail applications of the accusedpetitioners may be allowed.

¶30

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed these bail applications and contended that the petitioners committed robbery in the ATM by using gas cutter machine and took away Rs.3,95,600/-. The act of the petitioners were captured in the CCTV footage, therefore, considering the aforesaid facts and criminal antecedents of the accused-petitioners, therefore, the bail applications of the accused-petitioners may be dismissed.

¶31

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶32

Considering the fact that the petitioners are in custody since long and further trial of the case may take considerable time, the other similarly placed co-accused Alijan have already been

[2026:RJ-JP:13807]

[CRLMB-457/2026]

(3 of 4)

enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench, therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail.

¶37

Accordingly, these bail applications under Section 483 BNSS are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners namely:

¶38

1. Prahlad @ Hadiya S/o Bhura, 2. Arif Son Of Jaan Mohammad and 3. Afjal @ Abbal S/o Aneesh, in connection with FIR No.24/2025 registered at Police Station Udei Mod, District Sawai Madhopur, shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. The learned trial Judge shall also verify the address and the contact details of the surety through concerned SHO before releasing the accused-petitioners on bail.

¶39

The accused-petitioners are also directed to mark their presence on 25^th of every month till conclusion of trial before the concerned police station. The SHO of the concerned police station is directed to maintain a regular register marking the presence of the accused-petitioners and shall send the presence report of the accused-petitioners on the same day to the concerned Trial Court without any delay. In case of any breach to the aforementioned conditions, the learned Public Prosecutor shall be free to move the applications against the accused-petitioners for cancellation of the bail before the concerned Court.

¶40

The accused-petitioners are also directed to submit their present address along with the mobile number to the concerned

[2026:RJ-JP:13807]

[CRLMB-457/2026]

(4 of 4)

SHO within a period of 7 days from his release and the concerned SHO shall verify the said address and the mobile number. In case if the petitioners changes their address or mobile number, they shall submit the same before the concerned SHO so also before the concerned learned Trial Court.

¶45

A copy of this order shall be sent to the concerned SHO for its strict compliance.

¶46

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶47

Keshav/31-33

Prahlad @ Hadiya S/O Bhura v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prahlad @ Hadiya S/O Bhura 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

Ritesh Patel S/O Late Shri Ramesh Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahul Verma Alias Kansal Khudanpuri S/O Shri Dhara Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Raghuveer Singh S/O Dharmchand Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vikas S/O Babulal Vs State of Rajasthan

Uganti Devi Wife of Harisingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramkesh S/O Laxmanram Vs State of Rajasthan