Allowed¶22

Ramhari S/O Shri Meghsingh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Jul 2026CRLMB/7211/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Petitioner Ramhari S/o Shri Meghsingh to be released on bail under Section 483 B.N.S.S. on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court, with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing till conclusion of the trial. ¶22

Ramhari S/O Shri Meghsingh Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner Ramhari, accused in FIR No.205/2024 (PS Basedi, District Dholpur) for offences under Sections 143, 323, 341, 307 and 506 of IPC, 1860, should be released on bail under Section 483 of BNSS.

¶13

Court's answer

On consideration of the rival submissions and material on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, the Court was inclined to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and the petitioner Ramhari S/o Shri Meghsingh is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

¶22

Key takeaways

Release on bail is conditioned on the stipulation that the petitioner shall appear before the trial court on all subsequent dates of hearing till conclusion of the trial.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench (Pramil Kumar Mathur, J) — Bail Application No. 7211/2026 (order dated 09/07/2026): Bail granted under Section 483 BNSS to petitioner Ramhari S/o Shri Meghsingh, in custody since 28.03.2026 in FIR No.205/2024, PS Basedi, District Dholpur, for offences under Sections 143, 323, 341, 307 and 506 of IPC, 1860. Grant made on consideration of rival submissions — including contention that the injury to Abhishek on the left thigh involved no fracture/bone injury and was wrongly opined dangerous to life, chargesheet already filed, protracted trial, and parity with co-accused Rohitash (seven prior cases) bailed by a Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 18.09.2025 — expressly without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits. Conditions: personal bond Rs.50,000/-, two sureties Rs.25,000/- each, appearance before trial court on all hearing dates till conclusion of trial.

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:25743]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7211/2026 URN: CRLMB / 13116U / 2026

¶4

Ramhari S/o Shri Meghsingh, R/o Atarsuma, Police Station Basedi, District Dholpur (Raj.). (At Present Confined In District Jail, Dholpur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Anil Jain
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP
		Mr. Mukesh Kumar, ASI, PS Basedi,
		District Dholpur

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR

¶11

Order

¶12

09/07/2026

¶13

The petitioner has preferred this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.205/2024 registered at Police Station Basedi, District Dholpur for offences under Sections 143, 323, 341, 307 and 506 of IPC, 1860.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that though there is an allegation against the present petitioner for causing life-threatening injuries to injured Abhishek but as per the Medical Officer, the alleged injury is located on the left thigh, which is not a vital part of the body. He further submits that the Medical Officer has not reported any fracture or bone

[2026:RJ-JP:25743]

[CRLMB-7211/2026]

(2 of 3)

injury. Therefore, the injury, by its very nature, ought to be treated as simple. It is further contended that the Investigating Officer (I.O.), in connivance with the Medical Officer and with mala fide intent, has wrongly obtained or recorded an opinion that the injury was dangerous to life. It is submitted that co-accused Rohitash who has criminal past of seven cases has already been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.09.2025. The case of the petitioner is akin to him. Petitioner is behind the bars since 28.03.2026 though six cases have been reported against him, however, in one case he got the order of acquittal and in remaining cases he is already on bail. Chargesheet has already been filed. The trial of the case will take considerable time, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further custody and on the ground of parity with other co-accused, the bail application deserves to be allowed.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶21

On consideration of the rival submissions and material available on record and in light of submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, I am inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner.

¶22

Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner Ramhari S/o Shri Meghsingh, be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial

[2026:RJ-JP:25743]

[CRLMB-7211/2026]

(3 of 3)

court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing till conclusion of the trial.

¶27

(PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶28

Chandan/16

Ramhari S/O Shri Meghsingh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramhari S/O Shri Meghsingh 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

Aakash Verma Son of Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Devi Singh S/O Shri Keshar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Devi Singh S/O Shri Keshar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Sangeeta W/O Kailash Vs the State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Aarif S/O Haji Mohammad Ibrahim Vs the State of Rajasthan

Jagram S/O Shri Tilak Singh Vs State of Rajasthan