Mohan Lal S/O Jansiram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Feb 2026CRLMB/88/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 483 BNSS second bail application allowed; FIR No.39/2025 Police Station Rahuwas District Dausa; BNS Sections 103(1), 103(2), 115(2), 126(2), 190, 191(1), 191(2), 117(2); Police statements Section 180 BNSS; single fatal head injury assigned to all three co-accused; overexaggeration; PW-1 Kailash, PW-2 Sohan Lal, PW-3 Vinod Kumar; first bail application rejected 14.10.2025; personal bond Rs.50,000/-, two sureties Rs.25,000/- each; Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand; order dated 03/02/2026; CRLMB-88/2026.

What did the court decide?

Accused-petitioners Mohan Lal, Kamlesh and Rajendra @ Raju ordered to be released on bail, each furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to appearance on all hearing dates. ¶¶31

Mohan Lal S/O Jansiram Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the second bail application of the three accused-petitioners under Section 483 BNSS in FIR No.39/2025 should be granted after their first bail application was rejected on 14.10.2025 with liberty to renew following recording of material witnesses' statements. +1 more

¶¶15

Court's answer

Looking to the fact that the petitioners are in custody and the trial will take its own time to conclude, and without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits, the Court deemed it just and appropriate to grant them bail under Section 483 BNSS.

¶¶30

Ratio / Principle

Although the material witnesses repeated the same story in their Court statements, the Court took into account that the deceased sustained only one fatal injury, which has been assigned to all the three accused.

¶¶27

Key takeaways

The Court concluded that the instant case appears to be a case of overexaggeration.ratio¶¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail granted. Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), single Judge Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, order dated 03/02/2026 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 88/2026 (CRLMB-88/2026). Second bail application under Section 483 BNSS by three accused (Mohan Lal, Kamlesh, Rajendra @ Raju), confined in District Jail Dausa, in FIR No.39/2025, Police Station Rahuwas, District Dausa; charged under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 190 & 103(2) BNS and subsequently Sections 191(1), 191(2), 103(1) & 117(2) BNS. First bail application had been rejected vide order dated 14.10.2025, with liberty to renew after recording statements of material eyewitnesses Sohan Lal, Vinod and Kailash. After their trial statements (PW-1 Kailash, PW-2 Sohan Lal, PW-3 Vinod Kumar) repeated the same version, the Court nevertheless held that since the postmortem showed only one fatal head injury assigned to all three accused, the case appears to be one of overexaggeration; considering custody and the time the trial would take, and expressly without expressing opinion on merits, bail was allowed - personal bond Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 88/2026

¶3

Mohan Lal S/o Jansiram, aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Haripura, Tehsil Rahuwas, Police Station Rahuwas, District Dausa (Raj.). (Accused At Present Confined In District Jail Dausa).

¶4

Kamlesh S/o Shri Surajmal Saini, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Maliyo Ki Dhani, Khemawas, Police Station Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.). (Accused At Present Confined In District Jail Dausa).

¶5

Rajendra @ Raju S/o Daluram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Haripura, Police Station Rahuwas, District Dausa. (Accused At Present Confined In District Jail Dausa).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Vipin Sharma Mr.Amit Kumar Deshra
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.Shriram Dhakad, PP
	Mr.Rahul Sharma for
	Mr.Rajneesh Gupta

¶11

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

03/02/2026

¶14

The first bail application of the petitioners was rejected by this Court vide order dated 14.10.2025 while granting liberty to renew their prayer for bail, after recording the statements of the material eyewitnesses, i.e., Sohan Lal, Vinod and Kailash.

¶15

The instant second bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioners in connection with the FIR No.39/2025 registered at Police Station Rahuwas, District Dausa wherein they

¶16

[CRLMB-88/2026]

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

have been charged for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 190 & 103(2) of the BNS. Subsequently, they have been charged for the offences under Section 191(1), 191(2), 103(1) & 117(2) of the BNS.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after passing of the aforesaid order, charges were framed against the petitioners and during the course of trial, statements of these material witnesses PW-1 Kailash, PW-2 Sohan Lal and PW-3 Vinod Kumar have been recorded. Counsel submits that there are contradiction in their statements and they have improved their versions in their Court statement, which is contrary to their Police statements recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS and he further submits that in fact, the land in question is in possession of the petitioners and the same is non-partitioned land and in fact, the complainant side was being aggressive, hence, all of a sudden, a fight took place between the parties and cross-case has been registered against the complainant side also. Counsel submits that there was no pre-determination by the petitioners to commit the incident. Counsel submits that the petitioners are in custody since the date of their arrest and the trial will take its own time to conclude, therefore indulgence of bail be granted to the petitioners.

¶20

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposed the arguments raised by counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and submits that there is no material change in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the allegation of causing head injury to the deceased has been levelled against the petitioners by the said three witnesses, namely, Sohan Lal, Vinod and Kailash and the same allegations were

¶21

[CRLMB-88/2026]

¶22

(3 of 4)

¶23

levelled against the petitioners in their Police statement recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS.

¶24

Counsel further submits that the weapon of offence has also been recovered at their instance. Counsel submits that looking to the gravity of the matter, the petitioners do not deserve any indulgence of the bail.

¶25

In rebuttal, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that even the weapon of offence, which were recovered at the instance of the other co-accused persons, were also containing blood stains, but they have been enlarged on bail, hence, under these circumstances, the same indulgence may be granted to the petitioners as well.

¶26

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

¶27

Perusal of the order dated 14.10.2025 passed by this Court while deciding the first bail application submitted by the petitioners indicates that the prosecution was not clear about the fact that who has caused the injury on the head of the deceased, as this allegation has been assigned to all the three petitioners, while as per the postmortem report, the deceased has sustained only one fatal injury on his head and that is the cause of death which was the precise reason for rejection of the first bail application of the petitioners and in order to ascertain about the exact allegation, a liberty was granted to the petitioners to renew their prayer for bail, after recording of the statements of the material witnesses, i.e., Sohan Lal, Kailash and Vinod Kumar, however, even in their Court statements, they have narrated the same story, but looking to the fact that the deceased has sustained one injury, which has been assigned to all the three

¶28

(4 of 4)

¶29

[CRLMB-88/2026]

¶30

accused persons and the instant case appears to be a case of overexaggeration. Looking to the fact that the petitioners are in custody and the trial will take its own time to conclude and without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and appropriate to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioners under Section 483 BNSS.

¶31

Accordingly, the second bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners Mohan Lal S/o Jansiram, Kamlesh S/o Shri Surajmal Saini & Rajendra @ Raju S/o Daluram arrested in connection with the aforementioned FIR, may be released on bail; provided each of them furnish a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶32

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶33

Aayush Sharma /1

Mohan Lal S/O Jansiram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Lal S/O Jansiram 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

Mahavir S/O Narayan Vs Kamal Singh S/O Bhagwanaram

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Manoj Kanwar Wife of Late Roshan

Kuldeep Singh Vs Kana Ram and Ors.

Smt. Rekha Rani W/O Late Shri Anil Kumar, Vs Ramratan S/O Shri Prabhudayal Vayas

Ranjana Widow of Late Shri Dharam Chand Vs Ashok Kumar S/O Radhey Shyam

Rafiq Mohammad Vs Smt Manju Devi and Others