MANOJ YADAV @ MONU S/O PRAKASH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CRLMB/16003/2025 · 2026-01-23
Anil Kumar Upman
Transfer Petitionbody2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 20218 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 20218 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2026:RJ-JP:3345] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16003/2025
1. Manoj Yadav @ Monu S/o Prakash, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Khohari, Police Station Basdayal, District Kotputli- Behror (Raj.). (Presently Confined At Sub Jail Behror).
2. Dharampal Yadav @ Dp S/o Surjan Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Khohari, Police Station Basdayal, District Kot- putli-Behror (Raj.). (Presently Confined At Sub Jail Behror). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bharat Yadav For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Atul Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order 23/01/2026
1. The instant bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who are in custody in connection with FIR No.312/2025 registered at Police Station Bansur, District Kotputli-Behror for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 308(2), 309(4) & 3(5) of the BNS, 2023 & Sections 3/25 & 5/27 of the Arms Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter.
2.
Learned counsel for the accused-applicants submits that the accused-applicants have falsely been implicated in this matter. He submits that main allegation of using firearm has been levelled against the co-accused persons namely Bhupendra and Rinku
[2026:RJ-JP:3345] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16003/2025] Meena. Counsel contends that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.
3. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by
learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the bail application. They submit that as per the CCTV footage collected from the place of incident, presence of the petitioners are well established. It is submitted that petitioners are habitual offenders as several other cases have been registered against him.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record.
5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that trial will take long time to conclude as well as looking to the custody period, but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court deems it proper to allow the bail application filed by the accused-applicant.
6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners- 1) Manoj Yadav @ Monu S/o Prakash & 2) Dharampal Yadav @ Dp S/o Surjan Yadav shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred,
[2026:RJ-JP:3345] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16003/2025] on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.
7. It is made clear that the accused petitioners shall not involve in any other offence during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence in the concerned local police station in first week of every month till conclusion of trial.
8. Concerned SHO shall enter the attendance of the petitioners in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioners fail to mark their 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 the petitioners 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 GAUTAM JAIN /60