RAJNISH GURJAR @ RAJJU S/O SH. UMRAV GURJAR v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CRLMB/5921/2026 · 2026-04-21
Sangeeta Sharma
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 2446 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 2446 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2026:RJ-JP:16745] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3644/2026 Manoj Gurjar @ Manoj Saradhna S/o Shri Sheoprasad, Aged 20 Years, R/o Magra Ki Dhani, Lakher, Police Station Chandwaji, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Accused Petitioner Presently Confined In Sub Jail Sahahpura, District Jaipur). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5921/2026 Rajnish Gurjar @ Rajju S/o Sh. Umrav Gurjar, Age 22 Years, R/o Mamtori Kalan, Police Station Manoharpur, District Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Non-Petitioner For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Khurshid Ahmed Khan Mr. Sitaram Samota For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA
Order 21/04/2026
1. These bail applications have been filed on behalf of the accused-petitioners under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with FIR No. 25/2026 registered at Police Station Manoharpur, District Jaipur Rural for the offence(s) under Sections 353(2), 351(2), 111(2)(b), 111(4) of BNS.
[2026:RJ-JP:16745] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3644/2026]
2.
Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that the accused-petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case; that the accused-persons namely Manoj Gurjar @ Manoj Saradhna and Rajnish Gurjar @ Rajju are behind the bars since long; that recovery has already been effected; that co-accused namely Sachin Gurjar @ Baba has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 13.03.2026 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3887/2026. Conclusion of trial will take its own time, and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the accused-petitioners behind the bars and, therefore, prays that the accused-petitioners may be granted the benefit of bail under Section 483 of BNSS. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused- petitioners hereinabove and submits that there are criminal antecedents against the accused-petitioner namely Rajnish Gurjar @ Rajju. 4. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the accused-persons are behind the bars since long; that recovery has already been effected; that the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail; trial will take its own time. Hence, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, deems it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail. 5. Therefore, these bail applications under Section 483 BNSS are accordingly, allowed and the accused-petitioners namely Manoj Gurjar @ Manoj Saradhna S/o Shri Sheoprasad and Rajnish Gurjar @ Rajju S/o Sh. Umrav Gurjar are ordered to
[2026:RJ-JP:16745] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3644/2026] be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 6. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner namely Rajnish Gurjar @ Rajju shall not involve himself in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence on 1st and 15th day of every month in the concerned police station. 7.
In case of any breach of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Public Prosecutor shall be free to to move the application against the accused-petitioner Rajnish Gurjar @ Rajju for cancellation of the bail before the concerned Court. 8. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. 9. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned trial Court through e-mail/fax, for necessary compliance. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J KAVISH /14 & 16