[2026:RJ-JP:13653] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1925/2026 Sumit Sangat S/o Pintu Sangat, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Old Sabarmati Colony Police Thana Kaithunipole Kota City Rajasthan. (At Present Confined At Central Jail Kota). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order 01/04/2026 1. This bail application has been filed on behalf of the accused- petitioner under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with FIR No. 123/2025 registered at Police Station Kishorepura, District Kota City for the offence(s) under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109(1) & 3(5) BNS, in which charge-sheet has been submitted under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 118(1), 118(2), 126(2) & 3(5) of BNS and 4/25 of Arms Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; charge-sheet has already been filed; He further submits that petitioner is behind the bars since long; co-accused person Sumit Tanwar has already been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 16.01.2026 in S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. [2026:RJ-JP:13653] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1925/2026] 16924/2025 and his case is of similar nature; trial will take its own time, so no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars and, therefore, prays that the petitioner may be granted the benefit of bail under Section 483 of BNSS. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that there are eight other criminal antecedents instituted against the accused-petitioner. 4. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by both the parties, and considering the fact that during trial, injured Abhishek has stated that his life-threatening injury was not caused by Sumit Tanwar, and the other person named Sumit stabbed him by knife on his back and wrist, and he has rightly identified the accused-petitioner in identification parade. It is a case of multiple blows and the life- threatening injury was said to be caused by the petitioner on the vital part i.e. lumbar region of the injured, which shows that the petitioner had an intention to kill the injured and apart from this, eight other criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner and during the currency of bail in those cases, other offence has been committed by the petitioner and it is pertinent to mention that five criminal cases out of eight are similar to the present case. However, so far as the other co-accused, Sumit Tanwar, is concerned, his bail application has been allowed solely on the ground that during trial the injured has categorically stated that Sumit Tanwar has not inflicted any injury on him. Hence, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, does not deem it fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail. [2026:RJ-JP:13653] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1925/2026] 5. Accordingly, the present Criminal Misc. Bail Application is dismissed. 6. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J SHIVANI/20