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

CASE DISPOSED

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

National Investigation Agency Act Section 21

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

09-04-2026

FOR ORDERS- MISC. CASES

Orders

09-04-2026
MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL,BHUWAN GOYAL

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.

casestatus.in Summary

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

Search Another Case