Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 47569 (RAJ)

GULABSHANKAR S/O DHANNALAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/7013/2025 · 2025-11-19

Pramil Kumar Mathur

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:46700] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7013/2025 Gulabshankar S/o Dhannalal, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Bohat, P.s. Mangrol, District Baran (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 19/11/2025 1. The petitioner has preferred this bail application under Section 482 of BNSS in FIR No.123/2025 registered at Police Station-Mangrol, District-Baran for the offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 110 and 3(5) of BNS. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that both parties are neighbors. He contends that the alleged injury caused by the petitioner is simple in nature and inflicted with a blunt weapon. He also asserts that the FIR lodged against the petitioner is on false and concocted grounds. The petitioner has been in judicial custody since the date of his arrest. [2025:RJ-JP:46700] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-7013/2025] 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the FIR contains specific allegations against the petitioner for inflicting injury to Dhanraj, which is corroborated by the medical report. It is therefore contended that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail. 5. On consideration of the rival submission and material available on record and deliberating all the facts and circumstances of the case, especially in light of arguments advanced by learned Public Prosecutor but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, I am not inclined to allow the present bail application filed by the petitioner. 6. Hence, the present anticipatory bail application is hereby dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J Arun/218