[2026:RJ-JP:2584] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14237/2025 Sahil S/o Shri Mahesh Kumar, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Lambi Ahri, Police Station Pacheri Kala, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. (Presently Lodged In District Jail, Jhunjhunu). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15788/2025 Pankaj Kumar S/o Shri Brijlal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Lambi Aheer Police Station Pancheri Kalan, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail Khetri Jhunjhunu Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 300/2026 Ashok Kumar S/o Dalip Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Lambi Ahir, Police Station Pancheri Kalan, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail Khetri). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Farooq Ahmed, Mr. Sandeep Bhagwati with Mr. Shiv Prakash Dhanera, Mr. Anil Sharma, Mr. Hitesh Kumar Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Himashnu Awashti HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 20/01/2026 [2026:RJ-JP:2584] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-14237/2025] 1. The petitioners have filed these bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.161/2025 registered at Police Station Pacheri Kalan, District Jhunjhunu for offences under Sections 103(1) of BNS-2023. 2. Since all these bail applications arise out of common FIR, hence, they are being decided by this common order. 3. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the petitioners were not named in the FIR and no specific act has been attributed to them. The prosecution case rests solely on last-seen evidence, that too without any motive being attributed to the petitioners. Learned counsel vehemently contends that the arrest of the petitioners is vitiated, as the grounds of arrest were not communicated to them, though intimation was given to their relatives. The petitioners have been behind bars since 11.09.2025. It is further submitted that the trial is likely to take considerable time and, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in further judicial custody. Hence, the bail applications deserve to be allowed. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail applications and submit that the material collected during investigation prima facie establishes the involvement of the present petitioners. It is contended that any alleged procedural lapse [2026:RJ-JP:2584] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-14237/2025] at the time of arrest does not dilute the gravity of the offence, which is serious in nature. They further submit that the involvement of the petitioners is fortified by the statement of Amit recorded under Section 161 BNSS, as well as by CCTV footage collected during the course of investigation and looking to the seriousness of the offence, the bail applications are liable to be rejected. 6. It is true that communication of the grounds of arrest to the petitioners is a constitutional mandate and mere intimation of arrest to relatives does not amount to compliance. However, it is equally well settled that irregularity or even illegality in arrest, by itself, does not confer an automatic right to bail, particularly in cases involving heinous offences such as murder. At this stage, the nature of the accusation, gravity of the offence, and the material collected during investigation prima facie indicate the involvement of the petitioners. Procedural lapses relating to arrest cannot, at this stage, eclipse the seriousness of the charge. 7. Hence, upon consideration of the rival submissions and the material available on record, and without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, the bail applications filed by the petitioners under Section 483 BNSS are hereby dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J BRIJ MOHAN GANDHI 77/73-75