Allowed

Shivdayal S/O Shri Girraj Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Feb 2026CRLMB/64/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail applications by four accused in an FIR involving BNS offences and Wild Life/Forest Act provisions. Court granted bail citing simple injuries to the injured person, charge-sheet already filed and trial likely to be lengthy.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shivdayal S/O Shri Girraj Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:6936]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 64/2026

¶4

Shivdayal S/o Shri Girraj Prasad, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Pakkapura (Andawa Pureni) Police Station Diholi District Dholpur (Raj.). (At Present Petitioner Confined In District Jail, Dholpur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 65/2026 Ramlakshin S/o Shri Ramsingh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Gadhiwala Pura (Andwa Pureni), Police Station Diholi, District Dholpur. (Presently Confined In District Jail, Dholpur).

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1618/2026

¶16

Sunil Kumar Sharma @ Ballo Son Of Shri Girraj Prasad, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Pakkapura (Andawa Pureni), Police Station Diholi, District Dholpur (Raj). (At Present Confined In District Jail, Dholpur).

¶17

Rakesh Singh @ Rinku Son Of Shri Ramprakash, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Beehad Ka Pura (Karansingh Ka Pura) Currently Residing At Pakkapura (Andawa Pureni), Police Station Diholi, District Dholpur (Raj). (At Present Confined In District Jail, Dholpur).

¶18

----Petitioners

¶19

Versus

¶20

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶21

----Respondent

¶22

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Govind Upadhyay with
	Ms. Komal Shekhawat (SB CRLMB
	Nos.64/2026 & 1618/2026)
	Mr. Rahul Sharma &
	Mr. Aamir Khan for
	Mr. Rajneesh Gupta (SB CRLMB No.65/2026)
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP

(2 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:6936]

[CRLMB-64/2026]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA

¶27

Order

¶28

13/02/2026

¶29

The present bail applications have been filed by the accusedpetitioners under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No.259/2025 registered at Police Station Diholi, District Dholpur, for the offence(s) punishable under Section(s) 189(2), 115(2), 121(1), 127(2), 132, 109(1), 281, 125, 303(2) & 61 B.N.S, Sections 29/51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Sections 41 & 42 of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the accusedpetitioners have been falsely implicated in the case and they have nothing to do with the alleged offences. Learned counsel further submits that the injuries sustained by the injured person are simple in nature and the allegation of causing such injuries is assigned only to one petitioner namely, Shivdayal, and there is no allegation of such overt act upon the other three petitioners. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioners are in custody since long time; no recovery is required to be made from the petitioners, charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter and trial will considerably take long time in its conclusion, so no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in custody, therefore, the benefit of bail under Section 483 B.N.S.S. may be granted to the accused-petitioners.

¶31

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners

[2026:RJ-JP:6936]

[CRLMB-64/2026]

(3 of 3)

hereinabove and submits that the accused-petitioners have criminal antecedents.

¶36

Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, the fact that the injuries sustained by injured person are simple in nature, charge-sheet has already been filed and trial will take considerably long time to conclude, thus, without commenting anything on the merits / demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

¶37

Therefore, the bail applications under Section 483 B.N.S.S. are allowed and the accused-petitioners, namely Shivdayal S/o Shri Girraj Prasad, Ramlakshin S/o Shri Ramsingh, Sunil Kumar Sharma @ Ballo S/o Shri Girraj Prasad and Rakesh Singh @ Rinku S/o Shri Ramprakash, are ordered to be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, with the stipulation that the petitioners shall appear before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when they are called upon to do so.

¶38

(SANDEEP TANEJA),J

¶39

SAHIL SONI /13-15

Shivdayal S/O Shri Girraj Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shivdayal S/O Shri Girraj Prasad v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rishikesh S/O Shri Pitam Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Tanuj Singh S/O Manveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Pansingh @ Pana S/O Jivan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Chandra Devi W/O Ramcharan Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramlakshin S/O Shri Ramsingh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Shashi Gupta S/O Mohan Lal Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan