Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 15638 (RAJ)

ANNU @ ANNU KUMAR SON OF HARICHARAN v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/837/2026 · 2026-01-30

Anil Kumar Upman

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:4321] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 837/2026 Annu @ Annu Kumar Son Of Haricharan, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Kondar, Police Station Sadar Karauli, District Karauli (Raj.) (Presently Confined In District Jail Karauli) ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta with Mr. Utkarsh Goyal, Mr. Aamir Khan, Ms. Chanchal & Mr. Rahul Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishiraj Singh Rathore, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 30/01/2026 1. This bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.175/2024 registered at Police Station Karauli Sadar, District Karauli for offences punishable under Sections 189(2) & 109(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short, ‘BNS’), 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge- sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 109(1) & 61(2)(a) of BNS and Section 3/25(6) of Arms Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel contends that though there is allegation against the petitioner to [2026:RJ-JP:4321] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-837/2026] cause firearm injury but said injury has been opined as simple in nature and is on non-vital part of the body. It is contended that other co-accused persons have been granted benefit of bail by this Court as well as by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Learned counsel submits that charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time in its conclusion. It is submitted that petitioner is in custody since 28.05.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that petitioner is habitual offender as six other cases have been registered against him. 4. Heard. Perused the material available on record. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, as also considering the nature of injuries so also the fact that charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of this case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Annu @ Annu Kumar Son Of Haricharan, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before [2026:RJ-JP:4321] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-837/2026] that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 7. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 8. Concerned SHO shall enter attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 9. If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court. 10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /30