Deepak Malik @ Tinku S/O Shri Suresh Malik Vs the State of Rajasthan

[2026:RJ-JP:20557]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Third Bail Application No. 7424/2026

Deepak Malik @ Tinku Son of Shri Suresh Malik Age about 31 Years, Resident of Naurangabad Jatan, Police Station Jhojhu Kalan, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, District Charkhi Dadri, Hariyana (At present in District Jail Sikar)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Rajasthan through P.P.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Babu Lal Nasuna
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Sudesh Saini,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶11

Order

¶12

15/05/2026

¶13

This third bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.94/2025 registered at Police Station Khatushyamji Sadar, District Sikar (Rajasthan) for offences punishable under Sections 140(3), 309(4), 126(2), 115(2), 351(2), 351(3) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed chargesheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 310(2), 127(7), 238(b), 61(2)(a), 225 & 140(2) of the BNS, 2023.

¶14

The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 15.01.2026 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording

[2026:RJ-JP:20557]

[CRLMB-7424/2026]

(2 of 4)

testimony of victim. Thereafter, petitioner filed interim bail application which was dismissed as withdrawn by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.05.2026. Now, victim namely Amit Khandelwal and complainant namely Prerana Bhatt have been examined during the course of trial. Thus, this third bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that victim and complainant have been examined during the course of trial wherein they have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 12.07.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that though both the witness have been declared hostile but petitioner is habitual offender and twenty two other cases have been registered against him including offences punishable under Sections 302 & 395 of IPC.

¶21

I have considered the contentions.

¶22

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially considering the fact that victim and complainant have not alleged anything against the petitioner in their testimony and they have declared hostile, as also considering the fact that trial will take

[2026:RJ-JP:20557]

[CRLMB-7424/2026]

(3 of 4)

considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this third bail application.

¶27

This third bail application is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Deepak Malik @ Tinku Son of Shri Suresh Malik shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that he 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.

¶28

Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail granted by this Court. The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station in first and third week of every month, till trial is concluded. It is further directed that the petitioner shall share his mobile number (in use) to the learned trial Court and Investigating Agency and he shall keep his mobile phone in active mode and he shall not switch off his mobile phone intentionally for longer period.

¶29

Concerned SHO shall enter attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to

(4 of 4)

[CRLMB-7424/2026]

[2026:RJ-JP:20557]

immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

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

¶37

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶38

LALIT MOHAN /163

Deepak Malik @ Tinku S/O Shri Suresh Malik v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Malik @ Tinku S/O Shri Suresh Malik v. the 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

Stn Son of Late Shri Samundraya Alias Samundra Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Khemsingh @ Khemaram @ Khema S/O Bijendra Vs State of Rajasthan

Babita Kumari, W/O Pawan Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Virendra Singh Chandeliya S/O Shri Kumbharam Chandeliya Vs State of Rajasthan

Hakamdeen @ Hakam S/O Aameen Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramsahay Kushwah S/O Lutteram Kushwah Vs State of Rajasthan