Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 2389 (RAJ)

GAJENDRA @ TINKU S/O PHOOLCHAND v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/6100/2026 · 2026-04-22

Pramil Kumar Mathur

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:16979] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6100/2026 Gajendra @ Tinku S/o Phoolchand, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Botunda, Police Station Todaraisingh, District Tonk, Currently Residing At House No. 24, Kota Road, Police Station Hanuman Nagar, District Bhilwara. (At Present Confined In Sub District Jail, Tonk). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Jhingonia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 22/04/2026 1. The petitioner has preferred this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.198/2025 registered at Police Station Deoli, District Tonk for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the allegation against the present petitioner is that he merely attested a document which is alleged to have been created by the co-accused. It is contended that the role of the present petitioner is limited to that of an attesting witness. No specific allegation has been levelled against him regarding the preparation or creation of [2026:RJ-JP:16979] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-6100/2026] any forged document. The petitioner has been in custody since 23.02.2026 and has no criminal antecedents. The case is exclusively triable by the Magistrate. The trial of the case will take considerable time and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further custody, consequently, the bail application deserves to be allowed. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. 5. On consideration of the rival submissions and material available on record and in light of submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, I am inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner. 6. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is directed that the petitioner Gajendra @ Tinku S/o Phoolchand, be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing till conclusion of the trial. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J Arun/48