[2025:RJ-JP:39614] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6681/2025 Ravi Jain S/o Ramesh Chand Jain, R/o House No. 276, Scheme No. 3, Alwar, Presently R/o Plash 41, Apna Ghar Shalimar, District Alwar. (Presently Confined At Central Jail Alwar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chandra Shekhar For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 25/09/2025 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.588/2024 registered at Police Station Sadar Alwar, District Alwar for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3) and 340(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short, ‘BNS’), 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) and 341(1) of BNS, 2023. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. It is submitted that simultaneously, three cases have been registered against the petitioner. Counsel submits that petitioner was [2025:RJ-JP:39614] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-6681/2025] arrested on 10.12.2024 in connection with FIR No.724/2024 registered at Police Station Aravali Vihar, District Alwar and during custody in that case, arrest of the petitioner has been made in this case on 06.04.2025. Learned counsel contends that in FIR No.724/2024, benefit of bail has already been granted to the petitioner by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.05.2025. It is contended that dispute between the parties is of civil nature and petitioner has already repaid Rs.10 lakhs to the complainant. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard. Perused the material available on record. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, as also considering the fact that facility of bail has been granted to the petitioner by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in another FIR No.724/2024, so also the fact that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of this case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Ravi Jain S/o Ramesh Chand Jain, [2025:RJ-JP:39614] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-6681/2025] 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. The observations made hereinabove are 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 /74