[2025:RJ-JP:30267] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6073/2025 Praveen Kumar @ P.K. S/o Somveer @ Pappu, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Baloda P.S. Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (At Present Confined At Dist. Jail Jhunjhunu). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Upendra Singh Rathore, Adv., wit Mr. Krishan Kant Panwar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP 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.144/2024 registered at Police Station Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 323, 362, 342, 302 & 201 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(va) & 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 323, 362, 342, 302, 201, 149, 365, 506, & 120B of IPC and Sections 3(2)(va) & 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that impugned FIR was registered only on the basis of information furnished by injured Jethuram. Learned counsel submits that [2025:RJ-JP:30267] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-6073/2025] during the course of trial, said Jethuram and another injured witness Ishwar including alleged eye witness Manish, who is son of Jethuram, have been examined and nothing has been alleged by them in their testimony against the petitioner, rather Manish has clearly stated that petitioner has not committed any wrong to his father. Learned counsel contends that as per the testimony of injured Jethuram, four named persons namely Chintu Meghwal, Rajveer, Sitaram Meghwal and Praveen, who is resident of Ureeka gave beatings to the deceased. He further contends that petitioner is not resident of Ureeka, he is resident of Baloda and there is no allegation against him in the testimony of injured. It is contended that some CCTV footage have also been captured during the course of investigation but in these footage, petitioner is not visible. It is contended that petitioner has been made accused solely on the basis of the fact that vehicle in question wherein deceased was thrown in front of the house of the complainant, was in possession of the petitioner. It is argued that other co- accused persons, namely, Mukesh @ Subhash, Aman Singh and Deependra @ Chintu have been granted benefit of bail by this Court. He contends that charge-sheet has already been filed and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. He further argues that petitioner is in custody since his date of arrest and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that submit that petitioner is a habitual offender as four other cases have been registered against him. [2025:RJ-JP:30267] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-6073/2025] 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 testimony of injured witnesses namely Jethuram and Ishwar and another eye witness Manish; co-accused persons have been granted benefit of bail by this Court; 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- Praveen Kumar @ P.K. S/o Somveer @ Pappu 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. 7. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:30267] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-6073/2025] 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 a 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-407