This order grants bail and sets aside the High Court's rejection of bail. It does not acquit the appellant, does not record any finding on the merits of the Section 304-B and Section 120-B charges, and does not decide the outcome of the trial, which continues before the trial court.
- Case
- Dharmendra Koont v. State of Rajasthan
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decision
- Bench
- Satish Chandra Sharma; Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
- Case numbers
- SLP (Crl) No. 12326 of 2026
- Outcome
- Criminal appeal allowed: leave granted, Rajasthan High Court order dated 9 April 2026 in SBCRMTBA No. 4593 of 2026 set aside, appellant to be released on bail on conditions stated in the signed order dated 26 October 2026. The trial on the charges remains pending.
The order: bail granted, High Court order set aside
On 26 October 2026, a Supreme Court bench of Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh allowed a criminal appeal and granted bail to Dharmendra Koont, setting aside the Rajasthan High Court's order of 9 April 2026 by which his bail application had been rejected.
The appeal arose out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 12326 of 2026, filed against the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur's order in SBCRMTBA No. 4593 of 2026. The Court granted leave, allowed the appeal in terms of a signed order placed on the file, and directed that the appellant be released on bail.
The signed order states the Court's reason in one line: having regard to the nature of the allegations and the period of incarceration, the appellant's further detention in custody was unnecessary. It also makes clear that the observations in the order, and the grant of bail, are not findings on the merits of the case.
The case: a 2023 FIR, and nearly three years in jail
The appellant sought bail in connection with FIR No. 509 of 2023, dated 6 November 2023, registered at Police Station Amer, Jaipur, Rajasthan, for offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The signed order records that the appellant had been in jail for the last 2 years and 11 months.
Counsel for the appellant told the Court that the appellant had earlier gone along with his wife to lodge a first information report against his own parents, who were said to be harassing his wife, and that the wife had later committed suicide. Counsel submitted that there was certainly a suicide note on record. These are recorded as counsel's submissions, not as findings of the Court.
Counsel further submitted that the trial was not progressing and that the appellant had been in jail for almost three years, so that, keeping in view the period of incarceration, bail could be allowed. The State opposed the prayer, submitting that there was enough material against the appellant and that the bail petition should be rejected.
Why the Court granted bail
The Court weighed the competing submissions and accepted the appellant's case for release. Its reasoning, as stated in the signed order, turns on two factors taken together: the nature of the allegations and the period already spent in custody. On that combined basis, it concluded that further detention was unnecessary.
The order does not analyse the evidence, does not record any finding about what happened to the deceased, and does not discuss the suicide note beyond noting counsel's submission that one is on record. Readers should therefore not treat the bail order as any view on whether the charges will ultimately be proved.
That restraint is deliberate and is stated expressly: the order clarifies that its observations and the grant of bail will not be treated as findings on the merits of the case. The trial, and the question of guilt, remain for the trial court.
The conditions attached to the bail
The appellant is to be released on bail subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court, and subject to such other terms and conditions as the trial court may impose. The order adds three specific conditions of its own.
First, the appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, by making any inducement, threat or promise, dissuade any person acquainted with the facts of the case from disclosing those facts to the court. Second, if there is any breach of the terms and conditions of bail, the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail. Third, the appellant shall diligently attend the proceedings of the trial unless exempted; abstention without justifiable cause could itself be seen as a breach, and the trial court would then be free to pass appropriate orders.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. The appeal itself stands allowed on these terms.
What this order does and does not decide
What it decides is narrow and final for this stage: the High Court's rejection of bail is set aside, and the appellant is entitled to release on bail on the conditions stated. The appeal against the bail-rejection order is allowed.
What it does not decide is everything else: whether the offences under Sections 304-B and 120-B are made out, what weight the suicide note carries, and what the outcome of the trial should be. Those questions are untouched, and the order says so expressly.
For the appellant, the practical consequence is release after 2 years and 11 months in custody, subject to the trial court's bail bonds and conditions. For the prosecution, the case continues, with the liberty to seek cancellation if any condition is breached.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students: bail after long custody
This order is a compact example of how appellate bail reasoning works in practice. The Court does not re-try the case. It asks a narrower question: given the allegations as they stand, and given how long the accused has already been in custody, is continued detention necessary while the trial proceeds?
Note the two factors the Court pairs: the nature of the allegations and the period of incarceration. Neither factor alone is presented as decisive. The State's submission, that there is enough material against the appellant, is recorded and then answered not by disputing the material but by holding that, even so, further detention is unnecessary at this stage.
Note also the standard protective package that travels with such bail: bonds to the trial court's satisfaction, a no-tampering condition, a liberty to cancel on breach, and a duty to attend diligently. And note the merits disclaimer, which appears in almost every such order: bail is not acquittal, and nothing said here binds the trial.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- Why did the Supreme Court hold that Dharmendra Koont's further detention was unnecessary?
- What conditions did the Court attach to the bail, and what happens if any condition is breached?
- Why does the order expressly say its observations are not findings on the merits?
