[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Parhlad vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:5929) on 2 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:5929]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1462/2026
1. Parhlad S/o Nathulal, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of
Shivpuri Chirva, Police Thana Sukher, District Udaipur
(Raj)..(Presently Lodged At Central Jail Udaipur)
2. Mithalal S/o Parbhulal, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of
Shivpuri Chirva, Police Thana Sukher, District Udaipur
(Raj)..(Presently Lodged At Central Jail Udaipur)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. JVS Deora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Singh, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
02/02/2026
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners does not want to press
the present bail application qua petitioner No.2.
2. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed as not
pressed qua petitioner No.2.
3. This application for bail has been filed by the petitioner No.1
under Section 483 of BNSS (old Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) in
connection with FIR No. 650/2025 dated 27.11.2025 , Police
Station Sukher, District Udaipur, for the offences under Sections
115(2), 126(2), 191(3) and 333 of the BNS, 2023.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
No.1 has been falsely implicated in the case and false allegations
have been levelled against him. While referring to the statement
(Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 06:20:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5929] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1462/2026]
of injured recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS he submits
that injured has specifically levelled the allegation of causing
injury on co-accused Mithalal. In the said statement there is no
specific allegation against the petitioner No.1. He is in judicial
custody since 11.12.2025. As per the injury report, the injuries
do not appear to be dangerous to life and the trial will take
sufficiently long time, therefore, petitioner No.1 deserves to be
enlarged on bail.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes this bail
application however, is not in a position to refute the fact that
there is no specific allegation of causing injury against petitioner
No.1 in the statement recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public
Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
7. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of this case and after perusing the challan so also
the fact that no specific allegation has been made against the
petitioner No.1 in the statement of injured under Section 180
BNS, in the considered opinion of this Court, no fruitful purpose
would be served by keeping him behind the bars for an indefinite
period as the trial will take sufficiently long time. Thus, without
expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court
is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the applicant
deserves to be accepted.
8. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of
BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that petitioner No.1- Parhlad S/o
Nathulal, shall be released on bail in connection with the
aforesaid FIR; provided he executes personal bond in the sum of
(Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 06:20:35 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:5929] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1462/2026]
Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/-
each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for his appearance
before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever
called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.
9. 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.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
133-AbhishekK/-
(Uploaded on 02/02/2026 at 06:20:35 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
