Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 20197 (RAJ)

RAJENDRA S/O KALYAN v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/15910/2025 · 2026-01-29

Ganesh Ram Meena

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:4052] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15909/2025 Pradhan S/o Kalyan, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Kolaspura, Police Station Indergarh, District Bundi (Raj.) (At Present Confined In District Jail Bundi). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15910/2025 Rajendra S/o Kalyan, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Kolaspura, Police Station Indergarh, District Bundi (Raj.) (At Present Confined In District Jail Bundi). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15911/2025 Mahendra @ Forulal S/o Kalyan, R/o Gram Kolaspura, Police Station Indergarh District Bundi (Raj.) (At Present Confined In District Jail Bundi) ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikash Kumar Jakhar Mr. Devendra Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, P.P. Mr. Mahaveer Prasad, ASI, Police Station Indergarh District Bundi [2026:RJ-JP:4052] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-15909/2025] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 29/01/2026 1. These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioners in connection with FIR No. 115/2025 registered at Police Station Indergarh, District Bundi for the offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 110, 189(2) of B.N.S. 2023. 2. Heard. 3. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the accused-petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the case diary. 4. As per the contents of the First Information Report all the three accused persons gave blows on the persons of the members of the complainant party and in the said incident four persons sustained injuries. 5. As per the medico legal report, Radiologist's Report and opinion of the medical jurists the injured Bherulal is said to have received three injuries by sharp edged weapon and one of the injury has been opined to be dangerous to life. As per averments made in the F.I.R. the injury which has been opined to be dangerous to life has been attributed to the accused-petitioner Rajendra. Injured Manoj @ Vinod is said to have sustained two injuries and as per Radiologist's Report, injury No. 1 was found to be grievous in nature and later on it has been found to be [2026:RJ-JP:4052] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-15909/2025] dangerous to life. The said injury has been attributed to accused Pradhan. Injured Raju has also sustained two injuries out of which one of the injury has been opined to be grievous in nature and another injured Kali Bai has also sustained one injury. 6. Taking into consideration the allegations against the accused-petitioners and so also the injuries sustained by the complainant party and the nature of the injuries, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail. 7. Accordingly, these bail applications are dismissed. 8. However, accused-petitioners shall be at liberty to file fresh bail applications after statements of the injured witnesses. (GANESH RAM MEENA,J SHRUTI SHARMA /55,56,57