UMMED SINGH @ BANTI S/O SHRI NARPAT SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CRLMB/15831/2025 · 2026-01-22
Anil Kumar Upman
Transfer Petitionbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 20199 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 20199 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2026:RJ-JP:2927] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15831/2025 Ummed Singh @ Banti son of Shri Narpat Singh, age 35 Years, resident of Village Risani, Post Bhurthal, Police Station Chaumu, District Jaipur West, at present tenant Banwari Contractor Ka House, Daulatpura, Police Station Harmada, Jaipur West. (At present confined in Central Jail, Jaipur.) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Lakhan Singh Tomar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order 22/01/2026
1. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.570/2025 registered at Police Station Jhotwara, District Jaipur (West) (Rajasthan) for offence punishable under Section 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that alleged offence is triable by Magistrate for which maximum punishment is three years. Counsel submits that petitioner has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of pendency of other cases against him. Counsel submits that as per impugned order, there are thirteen other cases have been registered against the
[2026:RJ-JP:2927] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-15831/2025] petitioner but in five cases, he has been acquitted. Counsel submits that charge-sheet has been filed in this matter. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since his date of arrest and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. He submits that petitioner is habitual offender as thirteen other cases have been registered against him. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially the fact that alleged offence is triable by Magistrate, as also the fact that charge-sheet has been filed in this matter and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner – Ummed Singh @ Banti son of Shri Narpat Singh shall be released on bail provided, he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand Only), each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is
[2026:RJ-JP:2927] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-15831/2025] transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 7. Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, 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 conclusion of the trial. 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 LALIT MOHAN /56