[2025:RJ-JP:38058] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6647/2025 Prabhudayal Singh @ Rahul S/o Bhim, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Near Government School, Peethdha Post Mandawar, Tehsil Bhim, Police Station Devgarh District Rajsamand. (Presently Confined At Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary, PP Mr. Sanjay Gangwar, for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 03/09/2025 1. The instant bail application under Sections 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.05/2024 PS Special Police Station (SOG), Jaipur District ATS & SOJ for offences under Sections 285, 379, 411, 440, 120B IPC, Sections 15(1) and 15(2) of Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962, Sections 15(3), 15(4) and 16 of Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Amendment Act, 2011, Section 3, 4 of Explosives Substances Act, 1984 and Sections 3,4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. 2. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that the accused petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel representing the accused petitioner submits that [2025:RJ-JP:38058] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-6647/2025] the petitioner is not named in the FIR. No overt act of the petitioner has been described in the FIR. He has been made accused in this case only on suspicion. He did not commit any theft of crude oil. The petitioner is in jail since 08.08.2024. He does not have any criminal antecedents. Investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed whereas trial will take long time in its conclusion as there are 65 prosecution witnesses. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the IOCL oppose the bail applications. It is contended that petitioner along with other accused persons were involved in inserting pipeline in the pipeline of IOCL for illegally extracting crude oil for theft and thereby put the entire pipeline and nearby area at great risk as the petroleum products are highly inflammable. Section 16 C of the Petroleum Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 is also referred while opposing the bail application, which provides that no person accused of an offence punishable under sub-section (4) of Section 15 shall, if in custody, be released on bail on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release and where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable ground for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. They argue that since rigour of the aforesaid Section is applicable in the instant case, bail should not be granted to the accused petitioners. 4. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the [2025:RJ-JP:38058] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-6647/2025] petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for IOCL as also looking to the role attributed to the petitioner in the charge sheet and the fact that he does not have any criminal antecedents; he is in custody since 08.08.2024 and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this bail application. 5. 5. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Prabhudayal Singh @ Rahul S/o Bhim, 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. 6. 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 week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 7. 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. 8. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. [2025:RJ-JP:38058] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-6647/2025] 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. The observations made hereinabove is only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /78