Allowed

Rajveer S/O Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Jul 2026CRLMB/9419/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail sought by an accused charged under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 140(2), 142 and 307 BNS for allegedly driving a vehicle while co-accused demanded ransom. The court noted his custody period, limited role, absence of criminal antecedents, and that only the co-accused was alleged to have demanded ransom, and allowed bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be released on bail on personal bond Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs.50,000 each, with conditions against leaving India, committing similar offences or tampering with witnesses/evide

Rajveer S/O Bhagwan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:24603]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9419/2026 URN: CRLMB / 17407U / 2026

¶4

Rajveer S/o Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Jhirna Mod, Kharaita, P.S. Sadar Hindaun, District Karauli (At Present In Sub Jail Bayana, District Bharatpur)

¶5

---Accused-Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satya Pal Poshwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Gupta, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

¶11

Judgment / Order

¶12

02/07/2026

¶13

The present bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 11.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1 Bayana, District Bharatpur, in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.76/2026, whereby the bail application of the petitioner was rejected in connection with F.I.R. No.161/2026, Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur for the offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 140(2), 142 & 307 of the BNS, 2023.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 07.06.2026. He further submits that all the offences, except the offence under Section 140(2) of the BNS, 2023, are triable by the Magistrate. He also submits that the petitioner was only the driver of the vehicle, which was taken by the co-accused, Dayaram @ Daini, for dropping him in the area

[2026:RJ-JP:24603]

[CRLMB-9419/2026]

(2 of 3)

named as Rajanapura ki Dang. He further submits that the petitioner is a student, who is pursuing his education and has passed his examinations with first division and there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has neither demanded nor asked for any ransom from the family members of the victim. He submits that the only role attributed to the petitioner is that he was driving the Bolero vehicle, which was subsequently recovered from his possession. He further submits that as per his knowledge, there exists a dispute between Dayaram @ Daini and the victim, Lokesh, and his family members and that even a compromise has been entered between them. He also submits that no role has been attributed to the petitioner in demanding any ransom. Consequently, the offence under Section 140(2) of the BNS, 2023, which is triable by the Court of Sessions, is not made out against the petitioner. Therefore, he prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application.

¶20

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

¶21

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and upon a consideration of the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 07.06.2026; all the offences, except the offence under Section 140(2) of the BNS, 2023, are triable by the Magistrate; the role attributed to the petitioner is only that he was driving the vehicle, as is evident from the statements recorded during the investigation; and that, from the statement of Lokesh recorded

[2026:RJ-JP:24603]

[CRLMB-9419/2026]

(3 of 3)

under Section 180 BNSS, 2023, it is specifically alleged that the demand for ransom was made by co-accused Dayaram @ Daini and there being no criminal antecedents, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.

¶26

Consequently, the bail application is allowed . It is ordered that the accused-petitioner namely- Rajveer S/o Bhagwan Singh arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.161/2026, Police Station Bayana, District Bharatpur, shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rs. One Lakh Only) with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) each, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, with the stipulation that he shall appear before the said Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so until completion of the trial, subject to the following conditions:

¶27

(i) The petitioner shall not leave country without the permission of the Court;

¶28

(ii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected;

¶29

(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶30

(BIPIN GUPTA),J

¶31

Sudha/92

Rajveer S/O Bhagwan Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajveer S/O Bhagwan Singh 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

Lochan Singh S/O Dushyant Vs State of Rajasthan

Aadil S/O Sallu Vs State of Rajasthan

Sohil S/O Yunus Vs State of Rajasthan

Nazim S/O Hanif Vs State of Rajasthan

Mijaj @ Mujjam S/O Islam Vs State of Rajasthan

Ammar S/O Abdul Mazid Vs State of Rajasthan