HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12241/2026 CNR: RJHC020749862026 | URN: CRLMB / 22522U / 2026 1. Aarami Devi W/o Prabhu Lal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Kuhada Khurd P.s. Mehandwas, Tehsil And District Tonk (Raj.) (The Accused Is Presently Confined Under District Jail Tonk, Raj.) 2. Prabhu Lal S/o Laadulal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Kuhada Khurd P.s. Mehandwas, Tehsil And District Tonk (Raj.) (The Accused Is Presently Confined Under District Jail Tonk, Raj.) ----Accused-Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshay Yadav, Mr. Bharat Yadav For State For Complainant : : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP Mr. Pawan Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 18/08/2026 1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 28.07.2026 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tonk, Rajasthan, in Criminal Misc. Case CIS No.557/2026, whereby the bail application of the petitioners was rejected in connection with F.I.R. No.182/2026, Police Station Mehandwas, District Tonk for the offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109(1), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. (2 of 3) [CRLMB-12241/2026] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in custody since 21.07.2026. He submits that two children, namely, Harshita and Ekta, were playing and, while playing, fell on a stone and sustained injuries. He submits that thereafter, the FIR was lodged by one Gopal Gurjar, falsely implicating the present petitioners. He further submits that the parties have entered into a compromise and that even the mother of the victim, Harshita, has submitted an affidavit stating that the FIR was lodged in haste, whereas the injury was sustained by her daughter due to a fall while playing on a stone. He submits that the investigation/trial will take sufficiently long time and that the offences are triable by a Magistrate. Therefore, he prays that the petitioners may be enlarged on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant as well as the mother of the victim does not dispute the factum of the compromise having been entered into between the parties. He further submits that they do not object to the bail application and states that the complainant/mother of the victim has no objection if the bail application of the present petitioners is allowed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the complainant and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 6. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and upon consideration of the submissions advanced, particularly the fact that both the husband and wife are in custody; the parties have entered into a compromise; learned counsel appearing for (3 of 3) [CRLMB-12241/2026] the complainant as well as the mother of the victim has not disputed the factum of the compromise having been entered into between the parties and has further stated that they have no objection if the bail application of the petitioner is allowed; and the conclusion of the investigation/trial is likely to take considerable time, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application deserves to be accepted. 7. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners - (i) Aarami Devi W/o Prabhu Lal and (ii) Prabhu Lal S/o Laadula arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 182/2026, Police Station Mehandwas, District Tonk, shall be released on bail; provided they furnish a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rs. One Lakh Only) with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) each, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so till the completion of the trial and with additional following conditions: (i) The petitioners shall not leave country without the permission of the Court; (ii) The petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected; and (iii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (BIPIN GUPTA),J 59/KRATIKA