Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 20719 (RAJ)

ANIL S/O RAMJILAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/7098/2025 · 2025-06-12

Anand Sharma V J

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:23144] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7098/2025 1. Anil S/o Ramjilal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vijaypura, Police Station Chauth Ka Barwada, District Sawaimadhopur. (At Present Confined In District Jail Sawai Madhopur) 2. Harisingh S/o Ramjilal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Vijaypura, Police Station Chauth Ka Barwada, District Sawaimadhopur. (At Present Confined In District Jail Sawai Madhopur) ----Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan, through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishna Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Naveen Kumar Khaparwal for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA (V.J.) Order 12/06/2025 1. Learned counsel for the complainant is present in the Court. 2. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioners under Section 483 of BNSS in respect of FIR No. 275/2024 registered at Police Station Chauth Ka Barwada, District Sawai Madhopur for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109(1) & 3(5) of BNS. 3. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that although allegations in the instant matter are of Section 109(1) of BNS and other allied offences. However, such allegations are false and the petitioners have wrongly been implicated in the FIR. Even [2025:RJ-JP:23144] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-7098/2025] otherwise, compromise has been entered into between the accused-petitioners and the complainant, the copy of said compromise has also been placed on record as Annexure-3 & 4. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant has also not disputed the fact of entering into compromise with the accused-petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that in the aforesaid circumstances, there is no likelihood of their conviction in respect of instant FIR, hence, no fruitful purpose will be yielded by continuing the custody of the accused-petitioners. Trial is likely to take considerably long time. Therefore, the accused-petitioners may be allowed to enlarge on bail. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed this bail application. 7. Considered the submissions made at Bar. 8. Taking into consideration, the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail. 9. Accordingly, this Bail Application is hereby allowed. The accused-petitioners Anil S/o Ramjilal & Harisingh S/o Ramjilal shall be released on bail in pursuance of FIR No. 275/2024 registered at Police Station Chauth Ka Barwada, District Sawai Madhopur on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- each along with two sureties of the like amount. That apart, the accused-petitioners shall also follow the conditions as under:- (i) They shall not tamper with any evidence, nor would influence [2025:RJ-JP:23144] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-7098/2025] the witnesses in the case. (ii) They shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. (iii) They shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend each and every date of hearing in the trial, until and unless their presence are exempted by the trial Court. 10. In case of failure of observance of the conditions, a ground for cancellation of bail would arise. (ANAND SHARMA (V. J.)),J DIVYA /193