Vishal Singh S/O Shri Omveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:3097]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 17024/2025

¶4

Aman S/o Shyamlal, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Kanshiram Ki Jhopadiyan Binori Balaji, Lalsot, Police Station Mandawari, District Dausa (Rajasthan) (At Present Accused Is Confined In Sub Jail Nainwa, District Bundi)

¶5

Ajay Kumar @ Aju @ Ashu S/o Rajesh Kumar, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Infront Of Jitendra School, Vidhyut Nagar Mirjapur, Gangapur City, P/s Sadar District Sawai Madhopur. (At Present Accused Is Confined In Sub Jail Nainwa, District Bundi).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 17025/2025 Abid Hussain S/o Nisar Ahmed, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Ward No. 16, Chungi Naka, Nainwa, P.s Nainwa, District Bundi Rajasthan. (At Present Confined Sub Jail Nainwa District Bundi, Since 26.11.2025)

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 630/2026

¶17

Vishal Singh S/o Shri Omveer Singh, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Sharikla, Thana Uchain District Bharatpur (Raj.) (The Accused Is Confined In District Jail Bundi)

¶18

Monu Dhakar S/o Shri Khamchand, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Hindaun City, Thana Kotwali, District Karauli (Raj.) (The Accused Is Confined In District Jail Bundi).

¶19

----Petitioners

¶20

Versus

¶21

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶22

----Respondent

¶23

(2 of 5) [CRLMB-17024/2025]

¶24

[2026:RJ-JP:3097]

¶25

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 631/2026

¶26

Kaushal @ Dhakad Sarkar S/o Ramsahay, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Bamangaon, Police Station Nainwa, District Bundi (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In District Jail, Bundi)

¶27

Ravi @ Golu S/o Mahavir, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Jarkhoda, Police Station Karvar, District Bundi (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In District Jail, Bundi)

¶28

----Petitioners

¶29

Versus

¶30

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶31

----Respondent

¶32

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Gajveer Singh Rajawat
	Mr. Zakir Hussain
	Mr. Neeraj Sharma
	Mr. Tarun Jain
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Amit Punia,PP

¶33

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶34

Order

¶35

16/01/2026

¶36

These instant bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.349/2025 registered at Police Station Nainwa, District Bundi for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 189(2) and 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023.

¶37

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submit that essential ingredients of Section 110 of BNS, 2023 (Corresponding to Section 308 of IPC) are not present in this case. It is argued that petitioners are not named in the FIR.

(3 of 5)

[2026:RJ-JP:3097]

[CRLMB-17024/2025]

Counsel submit that injuries sustained by the injured have not been opined as dangerous to life by the medical expert. It is argued that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submit that petitioners- Abid Hussain, Vishal Singh, Monu Dhakar, Kaushal @ Dhakad Sarkar and Ravi @ Golu are in custody since 26.11.2025 whereas petitioners- Aman and Ajay Kumar @ Aju @ Ashu are in custody since 29.11.2025. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶42

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. Counsel submits that the petitioners attempted to strike the complainant on the head with a sariya (rebar). However, the complainant managed to defend himself, as a result of which he sustained injuries to the fingers of his left hand and other parts of his body, including fractures to the fingers of the left hand. He submits that during medical examination, a total of nine injuries were recorded on the person of the injured. Counsel further submits that except petitioners- Monu Dhakar and Ravi @ Golu, there are criminal antecedents against all the petitioners. He thus, prays that looking to the nature of offence, benefit of bail may not be extended to the petitioners.

¶43

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that although nine injuries have been noted on the person of the injured, injury No.1 has been opined to be grievous in nature, whereas injury Nos. 2 to 9 have been opined to be simple in nature.

¶44

I have considered the contentions.

[2026:RJ-JP:3097]

[CRLMB-17024/2025]

(4 of 5)

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially considering the material available on record, as also the fact that none of the injuries sustained by the injured have been opined as dangerous to life and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow these bail applications.

¶49

These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners- (1) Aman S/o Shyamlal (2) Ajay Kumar @ Aju @ Ashu S/o Rajesh Kumar (3) Abid Hussain S/o Nisar Ahmed (4) Vishal Singh S/o Shri Omveer Singh (5) Monu Dhakar S/o Shri Khamchand (6) Kaushal @ Dhakad Sarkar S/o Ramsahay and (7) Ravi @ Golu S/o Mahavir shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶50

It is made clear that the accused-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded.

¶51

Concerned SHO shall enter attendance of the petitioners in

(5 of 5)

[2026:RJ-JP:3097]

[CRLMB-17024/2025]

the Roznamcha. In case petitioners fail to mark their presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard.

¶56

If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to them by this Court.

¶57

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance.

¶58

The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of these bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.

¶59

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶60

LALIT MOHAN/181,182,184 & 185

Vishal Singh S/O Shri Omveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Singh S/O Shri Omveer Singh 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

Mohammad Sohel S/O Shri Mohammad Firoj Vs State of Rajasthan

Dheerap Singh S/O Shyam Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Tikamsingh S/O Chajusingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Manraj S/O Ramkishan Vs State of Rajasthan

Naresh Kumar S/O Heerala Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Rafi Rizvi S/O Shri Mohammad Jaki Rizvi Vs State of Rajasthan