Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 20392 (RAJ)

NARESH KUMAR URF NARSI GHANGHAL S/O MULCHAND @ MULARAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/16233/2025 · 2026-01-13

Praveer Bhatnagar

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:1409] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16233/2025 1. Naresh Kumar Urf Narsi Ghanghal S/o Mulchand @ Mularam, R/o Jainpurwas, Tehsl Behror Sadar, District Kotputali-Behror, Rajasthan (Presently The Accused Is In Judicial Custody In District Jail, Kotputali). 2. Kaluram @ Kalu Sood S/o Jayram, R/o Sudho Ki Dhani, Tan Buteri, Police Station Bansur, District Kotputali- Behror, Raj. (Presently The Accused Is In Judicial Custody In District Jail Kotputali). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP with Mr. Anirudh Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 13/01/2026 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioners. The petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.188/2025 registered at Police Station Paniyala, District Kotputli-Behror for the offence(s) under Sections 189(2) and 109(1) of BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the petitioner Naresh Kumar along with the other co-accused opened fire at complainant Yogendra. No fire arm was recovered from the petitioner Naresh Kumar possession. [2026:RJ-JP:1409] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16233/2025] It is also contended that the petitioner Kaluram is not named in the FIR and no identification parade was conducted. There is no substantive evidence available on record that petitioner Kaluram accompanied the other named co-accused Naresh Kumar in the vehicle and caused fire arm injury to the complainant. The other similarly placed co-accused Rajesh has already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 02.12.2025. The petitioners are in custody since 22.06.2025 and further trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioners may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently has opposed the bail application and contended that the petitioners caused fire arm injury to the complainant Yogendra Kumar and from their possession, the vehicle which was used in commission of offence was recovered. It is also contended that the petitioners are habitual offenders and found to be involved in many criminal cases, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioners may be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and after going through the contents of the charge- sheet, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail. 6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners namely: 1. Naresh Kumar Urf Narsi Ghanghal S/o Mulchand @ Mularam and 2. Kaluram @ Kalu Sood S/o Jayram, in connection with [2026:RJ-JP:1409] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16233/2025] FIR No.188/2025 registered at Police Station Paniyala, District Kotputli-Behror, shall be enlarged on bail provided both of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 7. The accused-petitioners are also directed to mark their presence on 25th of every month till conclusion of trial before the concerned police station. The SHO of the concerned police station is directed to maintain a regular register marking the presence of the accused-petitioner and shall send the presence report of the accused-petitioner on the same day to the concerned Trial Court without any delay. In case of any breach to the above condition, the learned Public Prosecutor shall be free to move the application against the petitioners for cancellation of the bail before the concerned Court. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/53