SHRIMAD VIJAY GOSWAMI S/O GOVIND BHARTI GOSWAMI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CRLMB/16867/2025 · 2026-01-07
Ganesh Ram Meena
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 20829 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 20829 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2026:RJ-JP:327] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16867/2025 Shrimad Vijay Goswami S/o Govind Bharti Goswami, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 86, Anand Vihar-B, Dadi Ka Fatak, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhaskar Sharma For Complainant(s) For State : : Mr. Deepak Chauhan Mr. Sudesh Saini, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 07/01/2026
1. Petitioner has filed this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. arising out of F.I.R. No.0555/2025 registered with the Police Station, Jhotwara, District Jaipur West for offence under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 189(2) & 303(2) of B.N.S., 2023.
2. Heard.
3. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material made available on record.
4. On perusal of the medical report, it is revealed that there are two injured persons namely; Bhavani Singh and Bheem Singh. Injured Bhavani Singh has sustained eleven injuries out of
[2026:RJ-JP:327] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-16867/2025] which, one injury is grievous in nature and injured Bheem Singh has sustained eight injuries out of which, one injury is opined to be grievous in nature. On perusal of the statements of the injured witnesses Bhavani Singh & Bheem Singh recorded under Section 180 B.N.S.S., it is revealed that the present petitioner has actively participated in committing the offence.
5. Taking into consideration the fact that the injured persons sustained grievous injuries and the present petitioner has actively participated in the offence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner.
6. Accordingly, the present anticipatory bail application is dismissed.
(GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /197