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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The bail applications were allowed and the accused-petitioners (Vijay, Vinod Kumar @ Pintu and Hukum Singh @ Hukamchand in the connected application) were enlarged on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Judge.

Issue for consideration

Whether the accused-petitioners, charged in FIR No.26/2025 (Police Station Batoda, District Gangapur City) for offence under Section 108 of BNS, 2023, should be enlarged on bail under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023.

Court's answer

The Court deemed it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case.

Ratio / Principle

Bail was granted on the basis that the Police had already submitted the charge-sheet after completion of investigation and the accused-petitioners had been in custody for more than one and a half months.

Key takeaways

As a condition of bail, each accused-petitioner shall furnish a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- together with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted. HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ganesh Ram Meena), order dated 16/01/2026, neutral citation [2026:RJ-JP:1916]. Bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 by accused-petitioners Vijay and Vinod Kumar @ Pintu (S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 724/2026) and Hukum Singh @ Hukamchand (connected CRLMB No.680/2026) in FIR No.26/2025 of Police Station Batoda, District Gangapur City, for offence under Section 108 of BNS, 2023. Stated allegation: the petitioners were charging a very higher rate of interest on money given by them to the brother of the complainant, who committed suicide; counsel asserted false/fabricated implication. With the charge-sheet already submitted after completion of investigation and custody exceeding one and a half months, the Court, expressly 'without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case', deemed it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail, each to furnish a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge.

[2026:RJ-JP:1916]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 724/2026

Vijay S/o Shri Devpal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Fulwada, P.S. Batoda, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.). (Presently In Sub Jail At Gangapur City, District Gangapur City).

Vinod Kumar @ Pintu S/o Shri Ramesh Chand, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Bichhochh (Unchagaon), P.S. Batoda, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.). (Presently In Sub Jail At Gangapur City, District Gangapur City).

----Petitioners

Versus

State of Rajasthan, through PP

----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 680/2026 Hukum Singh @ Hukamchand S/o Jauharilal @ Jorya, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Phulwada, Thana Batoda, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan. (Presently In Judicial Custody In Jail At Gangapur).

----Petitioner

Versus

The State of Rajasthan, through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anurag Sharma with Mr. Akshat Sharma & Mr. Anoop Meena in CRLMB No.724/2026 Mr. G.L. Sharma with Mr. Shankar Lal in CRLMB No.680/2026 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, Public Prosecutor

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

16/01/2026

[2026:RJ-JP:1916]

[CRLMB-724/2026]

(2 of 3)

These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioners in connection with FIR No.26/2025 registered at Police Station Batoda, District Gangapur City for offence under Section 108 of BNS, 2023.

Heard.

Considered the submissions made by counsel for the accused-petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the challan papers.

The allegation against the accused-petitioners is of that they were charging a very higher rate of interest for the money given by them to the brother of the complainant and in view of the charging higher rate of interest, the brother of the complainant has committed suicide.

It is submitted by counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have been implicated in this criminal case with a false and fabricated facts so as to create pressure upon the accused-petitioners for not demanding money which they have given to family of the complainant.

It is further submitted that the Police after completion of investigation has already submitted the charge-sheet and the accused-petitioners are in custody for last more than one and half months. It is also submitted that trial of the case will take considerable time.

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application.

Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and considering

[CRLMB-724/2026]

[2026:RJ-JP:1916]

(3 of 3)

the fact that the Police after completion of investigation has already submitted the charge-sheet in the matter and the accused-petitioners are in custody for last more than one and half months, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, these bail applications under Section 483 BNSS are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners named above shall be enlarged on bail provided, each of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- together with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- 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.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

Ashish Kumar /268-269