Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1123 (RAJ)

CHETRAM SON OF MITHALAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/4854/2026 · 2026-04-07

Ganesh Ram Meena

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:14428] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 4854/2026 1. Chetram Son Of Mithalal, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Chakeri, P.s. Kundera.(Accused Petitioner Presently Confined In District Jail Sawai Madhopur) 2. Vikas Son Of Ramsahay, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Bandhediya, Police Station Chauth-Ka-Barwara, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) (Accused Petitioner Presently Confined In District Jail Sawai Madhopur) ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sangram Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sriram Dhaka, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 07/04/2026 1. This second bail application has been filed by the accused petitioners under Section 483 BNSS in connection with FIR No. 0189/2025 registered at Police Station Rawanjana Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur for offences under Sections 318(4), 336(3), 338 of BNS 2023 and under Section 66C, 66D of IT Act, 2008 and under Section 13 of the Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949. 2. Learned counsel for the accused petitioners submit that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case [2026:RJ-JP:14428] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4854/2026] and they are in custody since 10.12.2025. He further submits that Police after completion of investigation, has submitted charge- sheet in the matter and there is no criminal case is pending against the accused-petitioners and the accused-petitioners are no more required for any kind of interrogation or recovery and trial of the case is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, the accused-petitioners may be enlarged on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the bail application. 4. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the accused-petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 5. Having regard to the submissions made on behalf of the accused-petitioners so also the fact that Police after completion of investigation has submitted charge-sheet in the matter and they are in custody since 10.12.2025, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail. 6. Accordingly, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners shall be released on bail provided that they furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac Only), together with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court or any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. [2026:RJ-JP:14428] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4854/2026] 7. However, it is made clear that in case the accused- petitioners are found to be involved in any other criminal case of similar nature in future, the prosecution may move an application for cancellation of this bail. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J SHRUTI SHARMA /15