[2025:RJ-JP:30264] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5327/2025 Shankar Lal S/o Motiram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Dulhepura, Police Station Khandela, District Sikar. At Present Confined At Jail Sikar. ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Goswami, Adv., with Mr. Shiv Kumar Jangir, Adv., Mr. Gravit Saraswat, Adv., and Mr. Jay Bhardwaj, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Ms. Arti Sharma, PP and Mr. Anish Bhadala, Adv., for complainant. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 06/08/2025 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.393/2020 registered at Police Station Khandela, District Sikar for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 307 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325, 307 and 34 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 other co-accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is also contended that petitioner was denied benefit of bail solely on the basis of criminal antecedents. None of injuries [2025:RJ-JP:30264] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5327/2025] sustained to injured have been opined as dangerous to life. Except one grievous injury, all other injuries are simple in nature. He argues that all other cases registered against the petitioner have been disposed of. He further argues that charge-sheet has already been filed and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. He contends that the petitioner is in custody since 26.03.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. They submit that petitioner is a hardcore criminal as 20 other cases have been registered against him in past. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially the fact that other co-accused persons have been granted benefit of bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court; except one grievous injury, all other injuries are simple in nature; charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner – Shankar Lal S/o Motiram 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 [2025:RJ-JP:30264] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5327/2025] 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. 7. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first and third week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner, as directed above. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 9. If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court. 10. Office is directed to send copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. The observation made hereinabove is 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 MADAN/S-400