Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8910 (RAJ)

RAVINDRA URF SONU S/O ANIL KUMAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/8693/2026 · 2026-06-24

Ravi Chirania

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:23565] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8693/2026 Ravindra Urf Sonu S/o Anil Kumar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Lisana, Police Station Sadar Rewari, District Rewari, Haryana. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In District Jail Dausa). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9142/2026 Aatendra Kumar Alias Aattu S/o Girraj Prasad, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Bahadakho, Police Station Mahawa, District Dause (Rajasthan) (Judicial Custody In Jail Dausa) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through The PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Birjesh Kumar Bhardwaj Mr. Pradeep Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Poonia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA (V.J.) Order 24/06/2026 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 in connection with the FIR bearing No.217/2026 dated 09.05.2026 registered at Police Station Mahuwa, District Dausa for the offences punishable under Section 331(6), 309(6), 111(3) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3, 25 of Arms Act, 1959. 2. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners have not committed any offence and only an attempt has been alleged in [2026:RJ-JP:23565] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-8693/2026] the impugned FIR, however, learned counsel admits that police has recovered one Katta and a live cartridge. He further submits that the petitioners have no criminal antecedents of the same nature, in view thereof, learned counsel prays that they may be enlarged on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor strongly oppose the bail application and submits that the conduct of the petitioners is serious. 4. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 5. Accordingly, the bail application is hereby dismissed. (RAVI CHIRANIA (V.J.)),J 79-80/TANISHA