[2025:RJ-JP:37584] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5446/2025 Murro Urf Murari S/o Sh. Sovran Singh, R/o Badapura, Moroli, Police Station Kotwali, Dholpur District Dholpur At Present Near Zahid Dhaba Gurjar Colony, G.T. Road, Dholpur, Police Station Kotwali Dholpur District Dholpur (At Present Confined In District Jail Dholpur) ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arpit Srivastava For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 16/09/2025 1. This bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.110/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali Dholpur, District Dholpur (Rajasthan) for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 121(1), 131, 109(1) & 303(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023, Sections 29 & 51 of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 and Sections 41 & 42 of Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that it is a case of no injury and petitioner has been made accused solely on the basis of pendency of thirty four other cases. Counsel submits [2025:RJ-JP:37584] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5446/2025] that in nine cases, he has been acquitted and in two cases, negative final report has been submitted by the investigating agency. Counsel submits that charge-sheet has been filed in this matter. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 03.03.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that petitioner is habitual offender as several other cases have been registered against him. 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 considering the fact that it is a case of no injury; charge-sheet has been filed in this matter; trial will take considerable 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 fit and proper to allow this bail application. 6. The bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Murro Urf Murari S/o Sh. Sovran Singh 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 [2025:RJ-JP:37584] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5446/2025] subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 7. Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, 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. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, 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 a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. 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 LALIT MOHAN /65