Gulab Alias Galbaram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:16927)
2026 Latest Caselaw 5548 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Gulab Alias Galbaram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:16927) on 10 April, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:16927]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
    S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2682/2026

Gulab Alias Galbaram S/o Shree Navaram, Aged About 25 Years,
Resident Of Bageri Police Station Aburoad Sadar District Sirohi
Rajasthan. (Presently In Judicial Custody At Aburoad Jail)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Arpit Surana
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Pawan Kumar Bhati, PP



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT

Order

10/04/2026

The instant second application for bail under Section 483 of

BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C.) has been filed on behalf of petitioner who

has been arrested in the present matter. The requisite details of

the matter are tabulated herein below:

S. No.                     Particulars of the case

   2.      Police Station              Aburoad Sadar
   3.      District                    Sirohi

4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 126(2), 115(2), 109(1) & 3(5) of BNS

5. Offences added, if any Sections 117(2) & 118(1) of BNS

The first bail application of petitioner was dismissed as not

pressed vide order dated 10.07.2025 passed by this Court in S.B.

CRLMB No.3918/2025, however, liberty was granted to petitioner

to file afresh application after statement of injured Dinesh Kumar

has been recorded.

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:32:20 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16927] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-2682/2026]

Now, the statement of injured Dinesh Kumar has been

recorded. Hence, this bail application.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has

been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted

that the statement of complainant Sailesh and both the injured

namely Dinesh Kumar and Rooparam have already been recorded

and in their cross-examination, they have denied having witnessed

the incident. The relevant portion of the statement is being

reproduced hereinunder :-

Statement of Sailesh :-

" e:tc fnus"k esjk lxk HkkbZ gS ;g ckr lgh gS fd oDRk ?kVuk eSa vius ?kj ij Fkk] eSus ?kVuk ugha ns[kh FkhA izn"kZ ih01 fjiksVZ odhy lkgc us fy[kh FkhA ;g ckr lgh gS fd izn"kZ ih01 fjiksVZ odhy lkgc us i<+dj eq>s ugha lqukbZ FkhA izn"kZ ih01 fjiksVZ esa D;k ckr fy[kh Fkh eq>s ugha irkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd izn"kZ ih02] ih03 o ih04 ij iqfyl ds dgus ij eSus vaxqBs fd;s Fks ;g ckr lgh gS fd izn"kZ ih03 o ih04 iqfyl us i<+ ugha lqukbZ FkkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd izn"kZ ih03 o ih04 iqfyl us i<+dj eq>s uygha lquk;k blfy, eSa ugha crk ldrk fd mDR izn"kZ esa D;k fy[k gqvk gSA

Statement of Dinesh Kumar :-

eq>s ?kVuk ds ckjs esa dqN ugha irk gSA iqfyl us esjs c;ku ugha fy;s FksA tc ge gkWLihVy vk;s Fks rc iqfyl okys ?kj vk, FksA eq>s ?kVuk ds vxys fnu gks"k vk x;k FkkA gkWLihVy ls eq> fdrus fnu esa NksM+k eq>s ugha irkA ?kVuk ds rhljs fnu Hkh gkWLihVy ls fMLpktZ dj fn;k gks rks eq>s ugha irkA esjs vkSj Hkxk ds vykok ml fnu gekjs lkFk rhljk vkneh jkek FkkA jkek ds firk dk uke D;k gS eq>s ugha irkA jkek dgka dk jgus okyk gS ;g Hkh eq>s irk ugha gSA eq>s xqyck ,oa dkyk ds firk th dk uke o fuokl LFkku Hkh ugha irk gSA Hkxk ds firk dk uke Hkhek gSA eq>s dsoy igyh pksV yxh mldk /;ku gS mlds ckn eq>s fdlus fdl gfFk;kj ls ,oa "kjhj ij dgka ekjk eq>s ugha irkA eq>s ;g lkjh ckrs blhfy, ugha irk D;ksafd eSa csgks"k gks pqdk FkkA ;g ckr lgh gS fd fnlEcj eghus esa ?ku?kksj va/ksjk gksrk gSA ;g lgh gS fd ?kVuk okys le; ekSds ij ?kksj va/ksjk gks x;k FkkA ;g dguk lgh gS fd gekjs xkao esa dkyk ,oa xqyck uke ds vkSj yksx Hkh gSA eSaus Fkkus tkdj ds iqfyl okyks dks dksbZ c;ku ugha fn;s FksA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSa ?kVuk ds ,d nks fnu ckn ,dne Bhd gks x;k gksA esjh Hkxk ls] jkek ls] "ksys'k ls] :ikjke th ls ,oa lkcwjh nsoh ls ?kVuk ds ckjs esa dHkh dksbZ ckr ugha gqbZA eSa ?kVuk ds ,d nks eghus ckn pyus fQjus yx x;k FkkA gekjs ,ao eqyfte i{k ds chp iapk;rh gqbZ FkhA geus eqyfte i{k ls iapk;rh esa ukS yk[k #i;s ekaxs Fksa eqyfte i{k us ikap yk[k #i;s fn;s Fks ,oa "ks'k pkj yk[k #i;s ckj ckj ekaxus ij Hkh ugha ns jgs FksA

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:32:20 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16927] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-2682/2026]

nksuksa eqyfteku vHkh rd tsy esa gSaA ikap yk[k #i;s eqyfteku ds fdlh fj"rsnkj us fn;s eq>s ugha irkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eqyfteku ds fj"rsnkj eq>s pkj yk[k #i;s blhfy, ugha ns jgs gks D;ksafd eqyfteku us esjs lkFk ekjihV ugha dh gksA ;g lgh gS fd eqyfteku ds fj"rsnkj eq>s pkj yk[k #i;s vkSj nsrs rks eSa muds i{k esa c;ku nsrk] mUgksaus iSls ugha fn;s blhfy, eSa muds f[kykQ c;ku ns jgk gwaA ;g dguk xyr gS fd esjs lkFk jkek o Hkxk us ekjihV dh gksA tgka esjs lkFk ekjihV gqbZ ogka ?kVuk ds oDr dkQh yksx ekStwn FksA eq>s gkWLihVy ysdj x;s Fks rc rqjar bZykt fey x;k FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd dkyk ds gkFk esa pkdw ugha gks vkSj xqyck ds gkFk esa QsaV ugha gksA esjs lkFk ekjihV djus okyks ds firk dk uke Hkwjkjke gks rks eq>s ugha irkA pkdw Qy ,oa gRFks lfgr yxHkx 12 lseh dk Fkk tks gFksyh ds uki ls NksVk FkkA pkdw ij [kwu yxk Fkk ;k ugha ;g eq>s ugha irk D;ksafd eSa rks csgks"k FkkA QsaV ij [kwu yxk Fkk ;k ugha ;g eq>s ugha irk D;ksafd eSa rks csgks"k FkkA ekSds ij ekStwn HkhM+ esa ls fdlh us Hkh eq>s NqM+k;k ughaA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSkds ij ekStwn HkhM+ us esjs lkFk ekjihV dh gks vkSj eSa eqyfteku dks xyr Qalk jgk gksmA eq>s jkek us Hkh ugha NqM+k;k FkkA ;g dguk xyr gS fd eSa eqyfteku ls pkj yk[k #i;s ,aBus ds fy, >wBs c;ku ns jgk gwaA"

Moreover, only 04 prosecution witnesses have been

examined before the learned trial court, out of a total of 15

prosecution witnesses. Furthermore, challan has already been filed

and petitioner has been in custody since 23.12.2024 (about one

year and four months); the statement of injured have already

been recorded; there is no chance to tamper with the witnesses

and trial of case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, benefit

of bail may be granted to accused-petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed present

bail application and submits that as per the injury report of the

injured Dinesh Kumar, it has been opined that the injuries

sustained by him are grievous in nature and could have been

dangerous to life if timely treatment was not provided. It is,

therefore, prayed that petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.

Having heard and considered the rival submissions, facts and

circumstances of the case as well as perused material available on

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:32:20 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:16927] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-2682/2026]

record; considering the fact that statement of both the inured as

well as the complainant have already been recorded; only 04

prosecution witnesses out of a total of 15 prosecution witnesses

have been examined before the learned trial court; challan has

already been filed and petitioner has been in custody since

23.12.2024 (about one year and four months) and trial of case will

take significant time; without expressing any opinion on

merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge

petitioner on bail.

Consequently, bail application under Section 483 of BNSS

(439 Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that accused-petitioner as

named in the cause title, arrested in connection with above

mentioned FIR, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any

other case, provided he/she/they 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/her/their appearance

before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever

called upon to do so till completion of the trial.

(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J 57-mSingh/-

(Uploaded on 10/04/2026 at 05:32:20 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)