[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anil Nayak vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:6954]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1652/2026
Anil Nayak S/o Pemaram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ribiya, P.s.
Bhaleri, District Churu. (At Present Lodged At District Jail Churu)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Singh, PP
Mr. Rajak Khan
Mr. Pankaj Sain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
Concluded and
Reserved on : 05/02/2026
Pronounced on : 10/02/2026
1. This application for bail has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 483 of BNSS (old Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) in connection
with FIR No.78/2025 dated 27.06.2025, Police Station Bhaleri,
District Churu for the offences under Sections 103, 110, 115(2),
117(2), 126(2) and 191(3) of BNS.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and false
allegations have been levelled upon the petitioner. One lathi has
been alleged to be recovered at the instance of the petitioner,
however, recovery of lathi itself could not be a ground sufficient in
itself to connect the present petitioner with the alleged crime.
2.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the FIR
was lodged by Manoharlal on 27.06.2025, who is not only the
(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 01:51:14 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6954] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1652/2026]
informant but also an injured witness. The said Manoharlal, in the
FIR so also in his statement recorded under Section 180 of the
BNSS, has not assigned any specific role to the present petitioner
for inflicting any injury to Rohitash (deceased) as well as the
complainant himself.
2.2 He also submitted that Hariram, Naresh and Sunil also
sustained injuries being present at the time of incident as alleged
in the FIR. However, in the statement recorded under Section 180
BNSS, but none of these three injured witnesses assigned any role
to the present petitioner in inflicting any injury to the deceased
Rohitash, rather, the allegation of inflicting injuries was levelled
against Balveer, Dharmaram and Mangilal. Further, the
postmortem report of the deceased Rohitash indicated three
injuries, sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and
the same are not attributable to the petitioner.
2.3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is in judicial custody since 27.06.2025 and the trial will
take sufficiently long time, therefore, he deserves to be enlarged
on bail.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the learned
counsel for the complainant, while opposing the bail application,
submitted that the petitioner is in custody on account of
committing heinous crime under Section 103(1) of BNS. It is also
submitted that the deceased Rohitash along with others including
the complainant Manoharlal were brutally attacked in a form of a
mob and, therefore, the role of the petitioner is not different from
the other persons, namely, Balveer, Dharma Ram and Mangilal,
therefore, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 01:51:14 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6954] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1652/2026]
4. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of this case and after perusing the charge-sheet, so
also considering the statements of injured witnesses, namely,
Manoharlal, Hariram, Naresh and Sunil recorded under Section
180 of BNSS, this Court prima-facie finds that none of the injured
witnesses have alleged that the petitioner was carrying any
weapon, which was used to inflict injury to deceased Rohitash nor
any injured witnesses have stated that the petitioner was having
lathi with him at the time when this incident took place, in the
considered opinion of this Court, no fruitful purpose would be
served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite
period. 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.
5. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of
BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that petitioner-Anil Nayak S/o
Shri Pemaram shall be released on bail in connection with the
aforesaid FIR; provided he executes personal bond in the sum of
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.
6. 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
-skm/-
(Uploaded on 10/02/2026 at 01:51:14 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
