[2025:RJ-JP:29321] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4634/2025 Mahesh S/o Badriprasad, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Paloda, Police Station Mandawar, District Dausa. (At Present Confined In District Jail Dausa) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.L. Sharma For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Krishan Kumar Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 30/07/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.16/2023 registered at Police Station Mandawar (Dausa), District Dausa for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 336, 451, 307, 302, 506 & 120B of IPC and Sections 3/25 & 27 of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 451, 336, 307, 302, 506 & 120B of IPC. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that initially, police filed charge-sheet in [2025:RJ-JP:29321] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-4634/2025] this matter against 13 persons including petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 336, 325, 307, 302, 506 & 120B of IPC and Sections 3/25 & 5/27 of Arms Act. Later on, police filed supplementary charge-sheet against three persons namely Akbar Khan, Hemchand @ Happy and Sunil Yogi and investigation was kept pending against 21 persons under Section 173(8) Cr.PC. It is submitted that other co-accused persons were denied bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court thereafter, two accused persons, namely- Akbar Khan and Sunil approached Hon’ble Apex Court and benefit of bail was granted to them considering the role attributed to them in the charge-sheet. It is contended that co-accused Rameshwar has already been granted benefit of bail by this Court. It is contended that according to charge-sheet, there is allegation against co-accused Akbar Khan that he fired against one Manoj, however, injury certificate in respect of Manoj reveals that he only sustained an abrasion. It is contended that similar allegation has been levelled against the petitioner that he opened firearm on witness Sonam and it appears from the injury report that injury sustained to Sonam is simple in nature. Learned counsel argues that as per charge- sheet, 92 witnesses have been cited by prosecution but till date, only one witness has been examined. In these circumstances, there are bleak chances of culmination of trial in near future. It is argued that petitioner is in custody since long and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the submissions [2025:RJ-JP:29321] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-4634/2025] made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that there is allegation against the petitioner of using firearm and causing injury on the person of Sonam. It is submitted that petitioner is convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in said case, appeal preferred by the petitioner has been allowed and he has been acquitted from the charges in the year 2015. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially considering the role attributed to the petitioner in the charge-sheet and further considering the fact that two co-accused persons, namely, Akbar Khan and Sunil have been granted benefit of bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court; co- accused Rameshwar has been granted benefit of bail by this Court as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 7. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Mahesh S/o Badriprasad, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. [2025:RJ-JP:29321] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-4634/2025] 8. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /408