[2025:RJ-JP:22782] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5700/2025 Mauj Khan S/o Nasru Khan, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Village Dhandholi, Police Station Pinua, District Nuh Mewat (Haryana) (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail Alwar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arafat Hussain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 30/05/2025 1. The petitioner has preferred this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.18/2022 registered at Police Station-Naugava, District-Alwar for the offences under Sections 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 of RBA Act. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case and the offences are triable by the Magistrate. Co-accused-Jakar has been released on bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court. Petitioner is behind the bars since 21.04.2025. No criminal antecedents against him. The trial of the case may take considerable time, hence the bail application of the petitioner may be allowed. [2025:RJ-JP:22782] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-5700/2025] 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. 5. On consideration of the rival submission and material available on record and deliberating all the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, I am inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that the petitioner-Mauj Khan S/o Nasru Khan shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court for his appearance before that Court on all the dates till conclusion of the trial. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J Arun/284