No Bail in Heinous Offences Prior to Recording Key Witnesses: Rajasthan HC

Refusing relief in a sharp-edged weapon attack case, the Rajasthan High Court ruled that accused individuals facing serious charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cannot be enlarged on bail before key material witnesses are examined. The decision underscores the judiciary's strict approach toward preserving testimonial integrity in severe violent offenses.

In a criminal appeal filed under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, a single-judge bench of Justice Sunil Beniwal examined the propriety of granting bail to an accused charged with murder and physical assault.

Court's Reasoning and Observations

The High Court carefully evaluated the gravity of allegations involving an attack with sharp-edged weapons causing severe injuries. Considering that investigation stood concluded with a filed charge-sheet, the Court emphasized that key witness statements were yet to be recorded.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties; the facts and circumstances of the case; the challan papers and considering the fact that he, along with other co-accused has committed offence under Section 103 BNS and inflicted injuries with sharp edged weapon to two other persons namely Harsh and Karan and the statement of material witnesses are yet to be recorded; and that having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, no case for bail is made out, without further commenting on merits / demerits of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail at this stage."

Dismissing the criminal appeal, the Court granted explicit liberty to the appellant, stating: "However, the appellant would be at liberty to file afresh after the statement of injured witnesses are recorded."

Background

The dispute arose out of FIR No. 31/2026 registered at Police Station Mount Abu, District Sirohi, alleging offences under Sections 191(2)(3), 109(1), 103(1), and 115(2) of the BNS, 2023, Section 4/25 of the Arms Act, 1959, and Section 3(2)(v)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant was placed in judicial custody on May 27, 2026.

Counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant was falsely implicated based on conjectures and surmises, noting that his presence was not captured in CCTV footage and that no specific role was assigned to him by one injured witness, while another eyewitness failed to name him. Conversely, the Public Prosecutor strongly opposed bail, citing the severe nature of the sharp weapon injuries inflicted on victims and the risk involved since material witness depositions were pending. The High Court concurred with the prosecution and dismissed the appeal at this stage.

Case Details:
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 1186/2026
Neutral Citation: 2026:RJ-JP:37742
Case Title: Sudheer v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Chakravarti Singh Rathore
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP

Source: 2026 CaseBase(RAJ) 8910