Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Kishan Lal Yadav Son Of Shri Sohan Lal … vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:9397]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 2032/2026
Kishan Lal Yadav Son Of Shri Sohan Lal Yadav, Aged About 48
Years, Resident Of Village Mau, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District
Sikar ( At Present Accused Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nirmal Kumar Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP
For Complainant(s) : Mr. Heera Lal Prajapati
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
05/03/2026
1. This second bail application under Section 483 BNSS has
been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in
connection with FIR No.253/2025 registered at Police Station
Chomu, District Jaipur West (Raj.) for offences punishable under
Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) & 61(2) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. After completion
of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter.
2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was
dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 07.01.2026
while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail before the learned
trial Court under the provision of Section 480(6) of BNSS
(corresponding to Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C.). Thereafter, bail
application was filed by the petitioner before the learned trial
Court, however, same was dismissed vide order dated 12.01.2026.
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 12:37:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 10:12:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9397] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-2032/2026]
Subsequently, the petitioner preferred second bail application
under Section 483 of BNSS before the learned Additional Sessions
Judge No.10, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Headquarter Chomu however,
same was also dismissed vide order dated 21.01.2026. Thus, this
second bail application has been preferred.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has
falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that the
alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. He submits that
charges were framed against the petitioner by the learned
Magistrate on 17.10.2025 and first date for recording the
prosecution witnesses was fixed as 30.10.2025. Counsel submits
that four months have passed however, till date, only 4 witnesses
have been examined out of 12 cited prosecution witnesses. It is
submitted that the trial will take considerable time in its
conclusion. Counsel submits that another FIR No. 431/2025 was
lodged against the petitioner at Police Station Chomu, District
Jaipur (West) by the father-in-law of complainant wherein benefit
of bail has already been granted to the petitioner by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.12.2025. Counsel
submits that the petitioner is in custody since 15.06.2025 and
further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful
purpose.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the
complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by
learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner is
a habitual offender as apart from this case, 4 other cases of
similar nature have been registered against him therefore, benefit
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 12:37:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 10:12:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9397] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-2032/2026]
of bail should not be granted to him.
5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
in FIR No.112/2013 registered at Police Station Chomu, District
Jaipur West, petitioner has been acquitted after facing a full-
fledged trial.
6. I have considered the contentions.
7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case; considering the arguments advanced by both the
parties, especially considering the material available on record in
the form of charge-sheet, as also the fact that alleged offences are
triable by Magistrate, so also considering the provision of Section
480(6) of BNSS (corresponding to Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C.) and
trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking
to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the
merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the second
bail application.
8. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is
directed that accused-petitioner Kishan Lal Yadav Son Of Shri
Sohan Lal Yadav shall be released on bail provided he furnishes
a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- together with two
sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before
that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all
subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do
so.
9. Considering the criminal antecedents of the accused-
petitioner, it is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 12:37:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 10:12:27 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:9397] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-2032/2026]
involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he
shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the
concerned police station, till conclusion of the trial.
10. Concerned SHO shall enter attendance of the petitioner in
the Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence
in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to
immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this
regard.
11. If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the
notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial
Court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court.
12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the
concerned SHO for necessary compliance.
13. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of
the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of
the case in any manner.
14. Complainant would be at liberty to seek cancellation of this
bail application before this Court if statement made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner with regard to the acquittal in FIR
No.112/2013 registered at Police Station Chomu, District Jaipur
West is found to be false/incorrect.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
GAUTAM JAIN /55
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 12:37:43 PM)
(Downloaded on 27/03/2026 at 10:12:27 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
