Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 21058 (RAJ)

KANHAIYALAL S/O SH. LAXMAN LAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/17011/2025 · 2026-01-20

Ganesh Ram Meena

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:2386] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 17011/2025 Kanhaiyalal S/o Sh. Laxman Lal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 701 Bal Leela Marg, Vinod Nagar, Beawar, Police Thana Saket Nagar, District Beawar. (At Present Confined In District Jail Beawar). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anirudh Tyagi with Mr. Saurabh Vaishnav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, Public Prosecutor Mr. Sharad Purohit for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 20/01/2026 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioners in connection with FIR No.452/2025 registered at Police Station Beawar City, District Beawar for the offences under Sections 303(2), 316(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) & 61(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. Heard. 3. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor assisted by counsel for the complainant and also perused the case diary. 4. It is the case of the complainant that the lease holder of the mining lease allowed the complainant partnership of 33% however, lateron the lease holder has allowed the partnership to a third party of 70% against the rights of the complainant. [2026:RJ-JP:2386] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-17011/2025] 5. It is submitted by counsel for the petitioner that he has been implicated in this case merely being a witness of the partnership deed in favour of the complainant. It is further submitted that the accused-petitioner has not drawn any benefit from the alleged partnership firm or from the complainant in any manner. It is also submitted that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 06.12.2025 and he is no more required for any kind of interrogation or recovery. 6. Taking into consideration overall facts and circumstances of the case and so also the fact that the accused-petitioner is merely a witness of the partnership deed and he is in custody since 06.12.2025, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner named above shall be enlarged on bail provided, he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- together with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the Court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /136