[2026:RJ-JP:26282] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15313/2025 URN: CRLMB / 29485U / 2025 Ankit S/o Shree Lal Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Gram Bartai Police Station Kumher District Deeg. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma Addl. G.A, Mr. Rahul Sinsinwar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 13/07/2026 1. The present criminal miscellaneous bail application has been preferred by the accused-petitioner under Section 482 of the BNSS, 2023, apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No. 678/2024 dated 28.09.2024, registered at Police Station-Kumher, District-Deeg, for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 352, 117(2), 118(1), 118(2), 3(5) of the BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR. It is further submitted that no grievous injury has been caused by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been granted the benefit of interim protection since 08.01.2026 and that his father, Lal Singh, has already been enlarged on bail by this Bench today itself. Therefore, he prays that the petitioner may also be granted the same benefit on the ground of parity. [2026:RJ-JP:26282] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-15313/2025] 4. Per contra, the bail application has been opposed by learned Additional Government Advocate as well as learned counsel appearing for the complainant. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that there are criminal antecedents against the present petitioner, Ankit, including a record of conviction. It is further submitted that the grievous injuries, including fractures sustained by the injured Mundra, have been attributed to the present petitioner. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner, who is alleged to have caused grievous injuries to the victim, is not entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel further submits that the case of the present petitioner is distinguishable from that of Lal Singh, who has been granted bail, and hence, the benefit of parity cannot be extended to the petitioner. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the petitioner, Ankit, has criminal antecedents and that the grievous injuries, including fractures sustained by the injured Mundra, have been attributed to him, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the present petitioner stands on a different footing from that of Lal Singh, who has been granted bail. Therefore, the benefit granted to Lal Singh cannot be extended to the present petitioner. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application stand dismissed. (BIPIN GUPTA),J 122/KRATIKA