Milan vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:20626)
2026 Latest Caselaw 7168 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Milan vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:20626) on 1 May, 2026

Author: Yogendra Kumar Purohit

Bench: Yogendra Kumar Purohit

[2026:RJ-JD:20626]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4667/2026

Milan S/o Vipin, Aged About 24 Years, Malwada, Police Station
Chitalwana, Tehsil Chitalwana, (Wrongly Mentioned As Tehsil
Sanchore In The Impugned Order) Dist. Jalore (At Present
Lodged In Jail, Udaipur)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :    Mr. Kanak Raj
                                Mr. Teja Ram
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Prem Singh Panwar,PP



     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Order

01/05/2026

1. The instant bail application has been filed by the applicant

Milan S/o Vipin under Section 483 BNSS against the order

impugned passed by learned court below in connection with FIR

No.89/2026 registered at Police Station Gogunda District

Udaipur for the offence(s) under Sections 316(2), 319(2),

318(4), 61(2) of BNS and Section 66C and 66D of IT Act.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant

has been falsely implicated in the case. Challan has been filed. He

further submits that accused is an employee and only mobile has

been recovered from the present applicant. Learned counsel

further submits that co-accused Chetan Singh and Praveen have

already been enlarged on bail by this Court on 10.4.2026. He

further submits that applicant is behind the bars since 24.2.2026

(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 01:07:43 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:20626] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-4667/2026]

and trial may take long time to conclude thus, he deserves to be

enlarged on bail.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application.

4. Considering the submissions advanced on behalf of the

parties, and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the

case, without commenting on the merits and demerits of the case,

this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the applicant on

bail.

5. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is

allowed and it is ordered that the accused-applicant shall be

enlarged on bail in the aforesaid FIR provided he furnishes a

personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of

Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned Lower Court for

his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of

hearing as and when called upon to do so.

(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J 30-Arti/-

(Uploaded on 01/05/2026 at 01:07:43 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)