Dismissed

Umashankar @ Uma S/O Amal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC8 Jan 2026CRLMB/9461/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a bail application filed by an accused charged with murder and offences under the Arms Act. The High Court refused bail due to the heinous nature of the offence, existence of criminal antecedents, and forensic evidence despite arguments regarding hostile witness testimony and lack of motive in the FIR.

What did the court decide?

The bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. was dismissed.

Umashankar @ Uma S/O Amal Singh Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:685]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9461/2025

¶4

Umashankar @ Uma S/o Amal Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Tudiyana, Police Station Balahedi, District Dausa, Rajasthan (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Bandikui).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. A.K.Gupta Sr/C with Mr. Rinesh Kumar Gupta Mr. Ashutosh Singh Naruka Mr. GorangAggarwal
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Rajesh Kumar Choudhary, GA cum AAG with Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Aditya Khandewal Mr. Mayank Kumar for Mr. C.S. Sinha, (CGC)

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order

¶11

08/01/2026

¶12

The petitioner has preferred this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.289/2024 registered at Police Station Manpur District Dausa for the offence under Sections 103(1) of BNS and Section 3/25 of Arms Act.

¶13

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

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is based on circumstantial evidence and the star witness which is projected as an eye-witnesses Fateh Singh, PW-3 has not supported the prosecution story and turned hostile. He further

[2026:RJ-JP:685]

[CRLMB-9461/2025]

(2 of 3)

submits that no intention or motive is mentioned in the FIR. He argued that recovery has been effected from the open place that too in the presence of police officials who are interested witnesses. It is also contended that there was no blood stains on the clothes of the petitioner and neither any article or seal or any malkhana register have been produced along with charge-sheet. The prosecution story shows that the gun-shot injury was caused by the deceased himself in which petitioner has not played any role. The material available on record does not disclose any nexus between the petitioner and alleged crime. Learned counsel urged that the petitioner is behind the bars since 24.10.2024 and till now only seven witnesses have been examined. The trial will take its own time, therefore, in the above scenario, the benefit of bail may be granted to the petitioner.

¶19

On the contrary, learned Public Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. They submitted that the weapon was recovered from the petitioner and the presence of the petitioner was not disputed on the spot. They argued that the petitioner has been named in the FIR. Though PW-3 Fateh Singh has turned hostile but his testimony shows that the petitioner was present on the spot with the deceased. The ballistic report and fingure print report submitted by the Forensic Science Laboratory indicates guilt of the petitioner. The petitioner has the criminal antecedents of two cases. The offence is heinous in nature and meticulous examination of the evidence produced by the prosecution as mini trial is not legally permissible while considering the bail application, therefore, the bail application is liable to be rejected.

[2026:RJ-JP:685]

[CRLMB-9461/2025]

(3 of 3)

Keeping in view the rival submission and material available on record and deliberating all the facts and circumstances of the case especially the arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant and the fact that the marshalling of evidence is not permissible at the stage of considering bail application, but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, I am not inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner.

¶24

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is dismissed.

¶25

(PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶26

bmg/23

Umashankar @ Uma S/O Amal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umashankar @ Uma S/O Amal 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

Rohitash S/O Indraj Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak Kumar Pradhan @ Dulu S/O Shri Madhav Pradhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Imran Khan S/O Aziz Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Govind @ Govind Sahai S/O Bhagwan Sahai Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamlesh S/O Dhannalal Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajat Ravikiran Toraskar S/O Shri Ravikiran Chintamani Toraskar Vs Narcotics Control Bureau