Rajasthan HC Grants Bail in Stunt-Driving Case, Orders DGP Inquiry Into Traffic Inspector Who Made Reels With His Son

Granting bail to an Audi car driver accused of a road stunt, the Rajasthan High Court directed the DGP to inquire into a Traffic CI’s social-media reel-making conduct, calling it “a very serious misconduct.”

A single-judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, comprising Justice Ashok Kumar Jain, on 17 July 2026 allowed the bail application filed by Barbdivya, son of Swaroop Singh, aged 22, a resident of Lakhuana, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa, Haryana, who was lodged at Jail Hanumangarh. Barbdivya had been arrested on 23 June 2023 in connection with FIR No. 357/2026 registered on 21 May 2026 at Police Station Hanumangarh Town for offences under Sections 281 and 125(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Beyond the bail order itself, the court recorded independent observations about the complainant — a Traffic Branch Circle Inspector — and directed the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, to conduct a formal inquiry into his social-media conduct and submit a report within two months.

The FIR and the Allegations

The FIR was lodged on 21 May 2026 by Anil Kumar, a Circle Inspector with the Traffic Branch at Hanumangarh, concerning an alleged incident two days earlier on 19 May 2026. Kumar reported that an unknown Audi car driver had been performing stunts on a public road, resulting in injury to his son, Lakshya.

After the FIR was registered, police investigated the matter and identified Barbdivya as the driver. During investigation, a charge under Section 110 of BNS, 2023 was added to the original offences under Sections 281 and 125(a). Barbdivya was arrested on 23 June 2023. The court noted that he has no criminal antecedents and that the injuries arose from the act of the vehicle; the injured and the accused were not known to each other before the incident.

Barbdivya moved the present application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail.

Applicant’s Case: The “Reel Drama” Argument

Counsel for Barbdivya, Mr. R.S. Choudhary appearing with Mr. Rakesh Dhaka, Mr. Nitin Meel, and Mr. Amit Saran, advanced a specific factual contention. He submitted that the complainant and his son are in the habit of preparing video reels and uploading them on social media to attract followers. According to the defence, on the date of the incident the complainant, while working as a Traffic CI, had stopped the Audi car and was in the process of making a reel when his son suddenly jumped in front of the vehicle as part of what the counsel characterised as a staged drama for the reel.

Counsel pointed to the complainant’s own report, which states that after receiving information he reached the spot and intercepted a driver performing a stunt, and that his son also arrived at the spot shortly thereafter. The defence argued this simultaneous arrival was unlikely to be a coincidence. Counsel also pressed that there was delay in filing the case, which was significant given that the complainant is himself a police officer.

The Public Prosecutor, Mr. Narendra Gehlot appearing with Mr. Omprakash Choudhary, opposed these contentions.

Why the Court Granted Bail

After hearing both sides and examining the material on record, Justice Jain identified two central circumstances favouring release. First, the investigation was complete and Barbdivya was no longer required for any investigative purpose. Second, he had already been in custody for a considerable period. The court expressly stated it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

The court found no criminal antecedents against the applicant. It also noted that there was no mens rea behind the incident, given that the injured party and the accused were previously unknown to each other and the injuries resulted from the vehicle’s movement. The trial proceedings were expected to take their own time.

On these findings, the court allowed the bail application.

Conditions Attached to Bail

The bail was made conditional on Barbdivya furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Four conditions were imposed:

• He shall not tamper with evidence or influence any witness.
• He shall not indulge in any criminal activity or repeat any criminal offence punishable under law.
• He shall attend hearings before the Trial Court on all dates fixed, or whenever called to appear.
• Any violation of the above conditions shall render the bail liable to be cancelled.

DGP Directed to Inquire Into Traffic CI’s Reel-Making Conduct

Before concluding, Justice Jain recorded what he described as “unusual facts which require an inquiry by the DGP, Rajasthan.” The court observed that a Police Inspector indulging in making reels and uploading them on social media platforms — whether Instagram, Facebook, or any other platform — with the assistance of his son, and thereby building a fan following, “is a very serious misconduct.”

The court directed the Director General of Police, Rajasthan to conduct an inquiry into the conduct of the complainant, CI Anil Kumar, and to send a report to the court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

The Registry was separately directed to transmit a copy of the order to the Trial Court by e-mail.

Order

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9086/2026 was allowed. Barbdivya is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, subject to the four conditions set out in the order. The DGP, Rajasthan, is directed to conduct an inquiry into CI Anil Kumar’s social-media reel-making conduct and submit a report to the court within two months of receipt of the order.