Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 9458 (RAJ)

CHANDRAPRAKASH @ CHAMAN S/O BANWARI LAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/7606/2026 · 2026-07-02

Sangeeta Sharma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:24457] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7606/2026 URN: CRLMB / 13857U / 2026 Chandraprakash @ Chaman S/o Banwari Lal, R/o Talwas, Police Station Dei, District Bundi (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In District Jail Bundi, District Bundi) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8704/2026 URN: CRLMB / 15946U / 2026 Manish Kumar S/o Ramratan, R/o Gulgaon Talwaas Thana Dei District Bundi Raj. (At Present Confined At District Jail Bundi) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Paliwal for Mr. Nitin Kumar Sharma Mr. Abdul Rahim Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Order 02/07/2026 1. These instant bail applications have been filed on behalf of the accused-petitioners under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with FIR No. 6/2025 registered at Police Station Cyber Police Station (Bundi) District Bundi for the offence(s) punishable under Sections 314, 318(4) & 319(2) of BNS and under Sections 66C & [2026:RJ-JP:24457] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-7606/2026] 66D of IT Act, in which charge-sheet has been submitted under Sections 314, 318(4), 319(2) & 61(2) of BNS and under Sections 66C and 66D of IT Act. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that the accused-petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case. He also submit that the accused-petitioners are in custody since long; that co-accused persons have already been enlarged on bail; that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate; conclusion of trial will take its own time, so 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 advanced by learned counsel for the accused- petitioners hereinabove but concurs with the fact that there are no criminal antecedents registered against the accused-petitioners. 4. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the material available before the Court and considering the fact that charge-sheet has been filed; that accused-petitioners are behind the bars since 29.12.2025; that there are no criminal antecedents against the accused-petitioners; that co-accused persons Asif Khan and Chhotaram have already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 27.04.2026 in S.B. Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2621/2026; that 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. [2026:RJ-JP:24457] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-7606/2026] 5. Therefore, these instant bail applications under Section 483 BNSS are accordingly, allowed and the accused-petitioners Chandraprakash @ Chaman S/o Banwari Lal and Manish Kumar S/o Ramratan are ordered to 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-petitioners shall not involve themselves in any offence(s) during currency of the bail. 7. In case of any breach of the aforementioned condition, the learned Public Prosecutor shall be free to move the application against the accused-petitioners for cancellation of the bail before the concerned Court. 8. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail applications 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 43-44/SHIVANI