[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sunil Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:17422) on 15 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:17422]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2859/2026
Sunil Kumar S/o Haribhagat Jhandu, Aged About 34 Years,
Resident Of Ward No 6 Talwara Jhil Police Station Talwara District
Hanumangarh. (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail Hanumanagarh)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. SR Pandit.
Mr. Manish Barasa.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Bhati, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
15/04/2026
The instant application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS
(439 of Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the 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 Talwara
3. District Hanumanagarh
4. Offences alleged in the Under Sections 409 & 120B of
FIR IPC
5. Offences added, if any Under Sections 420, 465, 467,
468, 471, 477(A) and 201 of
IPC
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended
that the offences alleged are triable by a Court of Magistrate,
except for the offence under Section 201 IPC. Learned counsel
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 02:01:15 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17422] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2859/2026]
further submits that the petitioner is working as an Assistant
Manager. It is further submitted that though the petitioner has
criminal antecedents, in two such matters he has already been
enlarged on bail by the competent trial Court.
It is also submitted that the co-accused, namely Sudhir
Kumar and Krishna Kumar, have already been granted bail by this
Court vide orders dated 08.12.2025 and 19.08.2025 passed in
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos. 10278/2025 and
3430/2025, respectively.
Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is in
judicial custody since 28.01.2026; the charge-sheet has already
been filed and the trial is likely to take considerable time,
therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail
application and submitted that the petitioner was responsible for
the transaction in question. However, he is not in a position to
dispute that the co-accused persons have already been enlarged
on bail.
Having heard and considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case as well as perused the material
available on record; considering the fact that the petitioner is in
custody since 28.01.2026, above named co-accused have already
been enlarged on bail and the trial will take sufficiently long time
to conclude, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of
the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Consequently, this bail application under Section 483 of
BNSS (439 of Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 02:01:15 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:17422] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2859/2026]
petitioner as named in the cause title, arrested in connection with
the above mentioned FIR, 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.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
301-/Jitender//-
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 02:01:15 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
