Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 19990 (RAJ)

SURENDRA ALIAS UNDARA S/O SHRI MEWARAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/15495/2025 · 2026-01-27

Praveer Bhatnagar

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:3551] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15495/2025 Surendra Alias Undara S/o Shri Mewaram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Makadwali, Police Station Ki Ganj, Ajmer, Distt. Ajmer (Rajasthan). (presently Confined At Centre Jail Ajmer (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Hora, Adv. with Mr. Aman Garg, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rhishiraj Singh Rathore, PP with Mr. Anirudha Singh, Astt. Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 27/01/2026 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.324/2025, registered at Police Station Christianganj, District Ajmer, for the offence(s) under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 189(2) and 109(1) of BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has falsely been implicated for the offences under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 118(2), 126(2), 189(2) and 109(1) of the BNS. It is contended that no prima facie offence under Section 109(1) of BNS is made out against the petitioner. It is also contended that the main dispute arose between the petitioner and the injured Setu Gurjar, who allegedly sustained four injuries, out of which two injuries were caused by a blunt weapon. It is further [2026:RJ-JP:3551] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-15495/2025] contended that there was no dispute between the petitioner and the other injured Rajveer. The injured Rajveer was merely intervening in the incident and there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to cause any injury to him, much less any intention to commit murder. It is also contended that the injuries sustained by injured Setu Gurjar and Rajveer have not been opined to be dangerous to life, though one injury caused to injured Rajveer was initially stated to be dangerous to life, subject to the condition that if not treated properly. It is argued that the co-accused Rajesh has already been enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 12.11.2025, the accused- petitioner is in custody since long, the charge-sheet has already been submitted and trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail and contended that there are direct and specific allegations against the petitioner of causing injuries to the injured persons, namely Setu Gurjar and Rajveer, inflicted on vital parts of their bodies and were found to be dangerous to life. It is also contended that injured Rajveer sustained eight injuries, out of which injury No.1 was caused by a sharp weapon and was opined to be grievous in nature. Similarly, injured Setu Gurjar has received four injuries and injury No.1, inflicted on the left temporal region was found to be grievous in nature as per the X-ray report. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that the petitioner caused injuries to both the injured persons on their vital parts, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed. [2026:RJ-JP:3551] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-15495/2025] 4. Heard and perused the material available on the record. 5. It is not desirable to express anything on the merits of the case. Considering the allegations levelled against the petitioner and the fact that the injured persons sustained injuries on vital parts of their bodies, the injured Setu Gurjar suffered a fracture of the left fronto-temporal bone and the other injured, Rajveer, sustained eight injuries, including one injury on the head caused by a sharp weapon, coupled with the recovery of the weapon from the possession of the petitioner, therefore, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands dismissed, with the liberty to file afresh after recording of the statements of the injured witnesses. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-78