Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Anil vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:37737) on 22 August, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:37737]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9030/2025
Anil S/o Rajuram, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Kanavasiya, Police
Station Bilara, District Jodhpur. (At Present Lodged At Sub Jail
Pachiyag, District Jodhpur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naresh Vishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
22/08/2025
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, being
aggrieved by the order dated 24.07.2025 passed by the learned
Additional Session Judge, Bilara, District Jodhpur, in (Criminal
Misc. 1st Bail Application No.133/2025) (Anil v. State of
Rajasthan), whereby the application filed by the petitioner-
accused under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. was rejected. The
petitioner is presently in judicial custody in pursuance to the F.I.R.
No.203/2025, registered at Police Station Bilara, District Jodhpur
Rural, for the offences under Sections 115(2), 117(2), 126(2),
189(2), 119(1), 110 & 74 of BNS.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned
Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submits that the
allegations levelled are general in nature against all the co-accused,
(Downloaded on 25/08/2025 at 09:40:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37737] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-9030/2025]
and no specific injury has been attributed to the present petitioner-
accused. He further submits that the injury report reveals that the
injuries sustained by the injured persons are not dangerous to life,
and only two injuries, upon tibia and fibula bone, have been found to
be grievous in nature. It is further contended that the said injuries
are not attributable to the petitioner, and all the injuries shown are
the outcome of blunt weapon, whereas the allegations levelled
pertain to the use of sharp-edged weapons. In these circumstances,
he prays that the petitioner may be released on bail.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently
opposed the bail application and submits that, the looking to the
manner in which that the offence was committed, allegedly with
premeditation by the petitioner-accused along with other persons,
the petitioner-accused does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
5. Having considered the arguments advanced by both parties
and upon perusal of the case diary, and further taking into account
that only two injuries have been shown to be grievous but not life-
threatening, as well as the fact that the injuries were caused by a
blunt weapon and no specific allegation with regard to the injuries
is attributable to the petitioner-accused, the Court is of the
opinion that the petitioner-accused deserves to be enlarged on
bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of
the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
6. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483
B.N.S.S. is allowed. It is ordered that the petitioner-accused Anil
S/o Rajuram arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.203/2025,
(Downloaded on 25/08/2025 at 09:40:35 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:37737] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-9030/2025]
shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided
he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- and two sureties of
Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his
appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and
whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.
7. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations
made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail
application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J
137-devrajP/-
(Downloaded on 25/08/2025 at 09:40:35 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)