Allowed

Ramakant S/O Shri Girraj Prasad Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Jul 2026CRLMB/7823/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court of Rajasthan granted bail to the applicant, a 67-year-old accused, under Section 483 of BNSS. The Court noted that key eyewitnesses had turned hostile and provided no incriminating evidence, supporting the defense story, and the trial remains inconclusive for a long time.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 and two sureties of Rs. 50,000 each, with stipulation to appear on subsequent dates.

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

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:26201]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7823/2026 URN: CRLMB / 14258U / 2026

¶4

Ramakant S/o Shri Girraj Prasad Sharma, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Sikandarpur, Police Station Salempur, District Dausa (Raj.) Presently Resident Of House No. 314, Guru Janbheshwar Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) (The Accused-Petitioner Presently Confined In District Jail Dausa).

¶5

----Accused-Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rajneesh Gupta with Ms. Chanchal
For State	: Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA cum AAG
	Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary, PP
For Complainant	: Mr. Mukesh Kumar Goyal

¶10

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

¶11

Order

¶12

13/07/2026

¶13

This instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the accused-petitioner against the order passed by learned trial Court dated 28.04.2026 under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with FIR No.64/2008 registered at Police Station Salempur, District Dausa for the offence(s) under Sections 302 & 34 of IPC.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Though, the deceased Ramdayal got injured after falling on stones and died as a result of these injuries. He also submits that accused-petitioner is behind the bars since long; that chargesheet has been filed. He further submits that widow and sons of

[2026:RJ-JP:26201]

[CRLMB-7823/2026]

(2 of 3)

the deceased, who are said to be eyewitnesses, have already been examined in the trial Court and all of them have turned hostile and said nothing incriminating against the accused-petitioner. He also submits that nothing has been recovered at the instance of the accused-petitioner; that there are no criminal antecedents against the accused-petitioner; conclusion of trial may take considerable time, so no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the accused-petitioner behind the bars and, therefore, prays that the accused-petitioner may be granted the benefit of bail under Section 483 of BNSS.

¶19

Per contra , learned Additional Advocate General and learned Public Prosecutor have vehemently opposed the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner but did not dispute the fact that complainant along with all the alleged eyewitnesses have been examined and they have turned hostile and nothing has been recovered at the instance of the accusedpetitioner. Further more, they did not dispute the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the accused-petitioner.

¶20

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and rival contentions advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties; particularly keeping in view the fact that the accusedpetitioner is a senior citizen of 67 years of age; that during the trial, widow of the deceased PW-1 Geeta Devi, complainat PW-2 Mahendra who is the son of the deceased and PW-3 Jitendra Kumar, PW-4 Vishnu Kumar and PW-5 Kailash Chand who are also the sons of the deceased and said to be the eyewitnesses, have already been examined during trial and they have turned hostile, as they said nothing incriminating against the accused-petitioner

[2026:RJ-JP:26201]

[CRLMB-7823/2026]

(3 of 3)

and corroborates the defence story; that trial will take its own time. Hence, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, deems it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶25

Therefore, this instant bail application under Section 483 BNSS is accordingly, allowed and the accused-petitioner Ramakant S/o Shri Girraj Prasad Sharma is ordered to be released on bail, provided he 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 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.

¶26

It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve himself in any offence(s) during currency of the bail. 7. In case of any breach of the aforementioned condition, the learned Public Prosecutor shall be free to move the application against the accused-petitioner for cancellation of the bail before the concerned Court.

¶27

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

¶28

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial Court through e-mail/fax, for necessary compliance.

¶29

(SANGEETA SHARMA),J

¶30

29/SHIVANI

Ramakant S/O Shri Girraj Prasad Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakant S/O Shri Girraj Prasad Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh S/O Rameshwar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Haseen S/O Jakar Vs State of Rajasthan

Dilawar @ Dilla S/O Khussi Vs State of Rajasthan

Shaukeen Alias Shaukat S/O Husaina Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod Kumar S/O Late Shri Devilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Aarif S/O Hameed Vs the State of Rajasthan