RAMBEER SON OF SHRI SATYAVEER vs N.I.A. Advocate - SNEH DEEP KHYALIYA — CRLAD/472/2025
Case under National Investigation Agency Act Section 21. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 09th April 2026.
CNR: RJHC020874592025
Next Hearing
19th November 2025
e-Filing Number
03-10-2025
Filing Number
CRLAD/37643/2025
Filing Date
04-10-2025
Registration No
CRLAD/472/2025
Registration Date
12-11-2025
Judge
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL , BHUWAN GOYAL
Coram
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL , BHUWAN GOYAL
Bench Type
Division Bench
Category
Other Criminal matters ( 113 )
Judicial Branch
CRIMINAL
Decision Date
09th April 2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISMISSED
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAMBEER SON OF SHRI SATYAVEER
Adv. MANISH KUMAR MEENA
Respondent(s)
N.I.A. Advocate - SNEH DEEP KHYALIYA
Hearing History
Judge: MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL , BHUWAN GOYAL
FOR ORDERS- MISC. CASES
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 09-04-2026 | FOR ORDERS- MISC. CASES |
Orders
Summary The Rajasthan High Court dismissed Rambeer's bail appeal in a murder case involving Rashtriya Rajput Karni Sena chief Sukhdev Singh Gogamedi. The court found prima facie evidence of the appellant's involvement in the conspiracy through the chargesheet, including evidence that he provided shelter, fake identity documents, and facilitated the escape of co-accused Nitin. Since charges under Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Chapter IV) were framed against him, Section 43D(5) restricted bail eligibility, and the court determined he failed to establish insufficient evidence against him. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary The Rajasthan High Court dismissed Rambeer's bail appeal in a murder case involving Rashtriya Rajput Karni Sena chief Sukhdev Singh Gogamedi. The court found prima facie evidence of the appellant's involvement in the conspiracy through the chargesheet, including evidence that he provided shelter, fake identity documents, and facilitated the escape of co-accused Nitin. Since charges under Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (Chapter IV) were framed against him, Section 43D(5) restricted bail eligibility, and the court determined he failed to establish insufficient evidence against him. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts