Suraj Dangi vs State of Rajasthan Advocate - P P — 146/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 483,. Disposed: Contested--Bail Refused on 09th March 2026.
Cr. Misc. Cases - CR. MISC
CNR: RJBR010003562026
e-Filing Number
-
Filing Number
274/2026
Filing Date
26-02-2026
Registration No
146/2026
Registration Date
27-02-2026
Court
DJ ADJ Baran HQ
Judge
4-ADJ II
Decision Date
09th March 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Bail Refused
FIR Details
FIR Number
617
Police Station
Kotwali Police Station Baran
Year
2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Suraj Dangi
Adv. Chen Singh Sirohiya
Respondent(s)
State of Rajasthan Advocate - P P
Hearing History
Judge: 4-ADJ II
Disposed
Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 09-03-2026 | Disposed | |
| 07-03-2026 | Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings | |
| 05-03-2026 | Arguments on Applications / Bail Applications / Arguments in Misc. Proceedings |
Final Orders / Judgements
Case Summary The Additional District and Session Court, Bara (Rajasthan) rejected the bail petition of Suraj Dangi under Section 483 CrPC on 09.03.2026. The court found credible evidence that Dangi actively participated in the murder of Shah Rukh, involving multiple accused persons, and determined that granting bail would risk witness tampering given the case's serious nature and ongoing investigation. The bail application was dismissed, with the court emphasizing that the gravity of the offense and established involvement warranted continued custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary The Additional District and Session Court, Bara (Rajasthan) rejected the bail petition of Suraj Dangi under Section 483 CrPC on 09.03.2026. The court found credible evidence that Dangi actively participated in the murder of Shah Rukh, involving multiple accused persons, and determined that granting bail would risk witness tampering given the case's serious nature and ongoing investigation. The bail application was dismissed, with the court emphasizing that the gravity of the offense and established involvement warranted continued custody. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts