[2026:RJ-JP:14868] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3971/2026 Shivcharan @ Chappan S/o Mulyaram, R/o Saadapura P.s. Todabhim Distt. Kauroli Raj. ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Awasthi Mr. Vimal Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP Mr. Yunus Khan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 09/04/2026 1. The petitioner has preferred this bail application under Section 482 of BNSS in FIR No.262/2025 registered at Police Station Todabhim, District Karauli for the offence under Section 109(1) of BNS, 2023. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case on false and concocted grounds. Learned counsel also submits that a cross-FIR was lodged by the petitioner’s side against the complainant party and the present FIR appears to be a counterblast to the same. He further submits that the allegations levelled against the petitioner pertain to inflicting a gunshot injury. Drawing the attention of this [2026:RJ-JP:14868] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-3971/2026] Court to the medical report of the injured Buddhi Devi, it is contended that she was suffering from an eye disease which suggests that the alleged injury was not the result of the act attributed to the petitioner. It is further submitted that though as many as 38 cases have been registered against the petitioner but in most of them the matters have already been compromised. He argued that there is no need of custodial interrogation of the petitioner, hence the bail application may be allowed. 4. On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the grant of anticipatory bail. Relying upon the medical report, they submit that the victim is a 70-year-old widow sustained an injury to her right eye as a result of a gunshot. They further contend that the petitioner is a habitual offender and as many as 38 criminal cases have already been registered against him and custodial interrogation is required, hence petitioner is not entitled for benefit of anticipatory bail. 5. On consideration of the rival submission and material available on record and nature of allegation, requirement of custodial interrogation and in light of submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, I am not inclined to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 482 B.N.S.S. is dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J Chandan/49