Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3720 (RAJ)

SUNIL S/O PREMSHANKAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/4971/2026 · 2026-04-13

Pramil Kumar Mathur

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:15325] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4971/2026 Sunil S/o Premshankar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Hingi, Police Station Sangod, Distt. Kota Gramin, Temporary Prem Nagar Second, Infront Of Baba Ramdev Mandir, Kota, Police Station Udhyog Nagar, District Kota City, Presently R/o Tenant Behind Petrol Pump, Main Chouraha, Borkheda, Police Station Borkheda, District Kota City. (At Present Confined In District Jail Tonk) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagdish Nagar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 13/04/2026 1. The petitioner has preferred this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.290/2025 registered at Police Station Deoli, District-Tonk for offences under Sections 331(3) and 305(a) of BNS, 2023. 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. It is further submitted that the allegation against the present petitioner pertains to an attempt to commit theft. The petitioner has been in custody since 14.11.2025. Though 15 criminal antecedents have been reported against him but he has been granted bail in all those cases. The [2026:RJ-JP:15325] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4971/2026] charge-sheet has already been filed. The trial of the case will take considerable time, therefore, 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 the 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-Sunil S/o Premshankar 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 with following further conditions:- (i) That during the conclusion of the trial, the petitioner “shall not enter or reside within the jurisdiction of the district where the case is pending except for attending Court proceeding and that too with prior intimation to the Investigating Officer” and shall mark his presence before the concerned police station where he begins to reside in every 15 days of each month. [2026:RJ-JP:15325] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4971/2026] (ii) The concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register for this purpose. In case, the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned Police Station as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to trial court in this regard. (iii) that the petitioner shall not repeat any such offence in future. (iv) If breach of any of the directions is reported or come to the notice of the trial court the same shall alone be a reason for learned Public Prosecutor to apply for cancellation of bail. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J Arun/25