Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7823 (RAJ)

VINOD BAVRIYA SON OF SHRI ROOPSINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/4112/2026 · 2026-05-14

Ganesh Ram Meena

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:20506] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 4112/2026 Vinod Bavriya Son of Shri Roopsingh, Aged About 25 Years, Resident of Village Rudkapura, Tehsil Baadi, Police Station Sadar, District Dholpur, At Present Tenant Hari Nagar Colony, Village Palwal, Police Station Dehat, District Palwal, Hariyana. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jaipur Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K. L. Meena Mr. Narendra Agrawal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Judgment / Order 14/05/2026 1. The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No.423/2025 registered at Police Station Mansarovar, District Jaipur City (South) for offence under Section 304(2) of B.N.S. 2. Heard 3. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor who oppose the bail application. 4. As per the contents of the first information report, the allegation against the accused-petitioner is of chain snatching. [2026:RJ-JP:20506] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-4112/2026] 5. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the offence as alleged against the accused-petitioner is triable by the Court of learned Magistrate and after completion of investigation, the Police has already submitted the charge-sheet. Learned counsel also submits that the learned trial Court has framed the charge against the accused-petitioner on 13.10.2025 and even after passing of more than six months, the trial has not been concluded and the accused-petitioner is entitled to be released on bail in view of the specific provisions of Section 480(6) B.N.S.S. 6. Taking into consideration the allegations against the accused- petitioner and so also the fact that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 02.08.2025 and the offence alleged against the accused-petitioner is triable by the learned Magistrate, 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, this second bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. 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 Prateek/51(s)