Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Kartik Sharma vs The State Of Rajasthan on 16 April, 2026
ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.13 SECTION II-D
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 6231/2026
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-12-2025
in SBCRMFBA No. 15938/2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature
for Rajasthan at Jaipur]
KARTIK SHARMA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondent(s)
IA No. 93562/2026 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 93563/2026 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 16-04-2026 This matter was called for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Nishant Bishnoi, AOR
Mr. Rajkumar Lalwani, Adv.
Mr. Devkishan Bishnoi, Adv.
Ms. Srishti Prabhakar, Adv.
Mr. Raghav Khanna, Adv.
Mr. Dhananjay Mishra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Ms. Sansriti Pathak, A.A.G.
Ms. Shagufa Khan, Adv.
Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR
O R D E R
Signature Not Verified
Heard Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel for the
Digitally signed by
SACHIN KUMAR
petitioner and Ms. Sansriti Pathak, ld. AAG for the respondent-
SRIVASTAVA
Date: 2026.04.16
16:56:18 IST
Reason:
State of Rajasthan.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in connection with FIR No. 278/2024
dated 14.05.2024 registered at Police Station Karni Vihar, District
Jaipur West, Rajasthan, for the offences punishable under Sections
143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307 and 308 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he along with
other persons had assaulted the injured-complainant side resulting
in serious injuries.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it
was a free fight due to some dispute relating to purchase of
construction material as the parties have shops side by side and in
the present case, a counter case has also been instituted. It was
further submitted that the allegations are general and omnibus in
nature. Learned counsel submitted that the father of the petitioner
was also made an accused and he has been granted bail on account of
him suffering from cancer. It was submitted that the petitioner’s
father is in the fourth and final stage of his battle against
cancer and thus the petitioner being the only son is required to
provide support at this critical juncture. It was further submitted
that there is no other criminal antecedent of the petitioner and he
has already been in custody for about two years.
5. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that out of 24
witnesses, 6 witnesses have been examined in the trial. However,
she fairly conceded that the petitioner does not have any criminal
antecedent.
6. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we are inclined
to allow the prayer for bail to the petitioner.
7. Accordingly, let the petitioner be released on bail subject to
conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court. It is made clear
that the petitioner shall cooperate on each and every date in the
trial. Failure to do so shall be a ground for cancellation of his
bail.
8. Accordingly, this petition stands disposed of.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(SACHIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) (ANJALI PANWAR)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR