[2025:RJ-JP:12302] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4/2025 1. Dinesh Choudhary S/o Shri Muknaram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Saran Nagar-A, Road Ward Number -79, Banad Road Jodhpur. (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer). 2. Dinesh Godara S/o Shri Harish Chand, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Todiyana, Police Station Aasop, District Jodhpur, (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer). 3. Vikas Choudhary S/o Shri Parasram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Mahadev Nagar Boruda, Police Station Boruda District Jodhpur Rural. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Vijay Kumar Jangid for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 18/03/2025 1. The instant application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.614/2024 PS Christian Ganj, Ajmer for offences under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 352, 310(2), 140(3), 62, 326 (g) and 351 (3) BNS, 2023. After completion of investigation, police has filed charge sheet in the court concerned. [2025:RJ-JP:12302] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-4/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the accused petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that omnibus allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. He contends that initially, scuffle took place between accused persons Pradeep Soni, Devraj Gurjar, Deva and Deepak @ Deepu Soni and the staff working at Khanpur petrolpump over online payment transaction. As per the petrolpump workers, online payment of Rs.500/-, made by the aforesaid accused persons was not received to them. Over this petty dispute, quarrel erupted between them. By exaggerating this small incident, it is alleged in the FIR that the accused persons snatched gold chain from one Yatindra and tried to abduct him forcefully in the car and that they set one unit of their petrolpump on fire by throwing inflammable substance. However, the workers used fire extinguishers and controlled it. Learned counsel further contends that there is no specific role attributed to the accused petitioners in the alleged incident. Most of the witnesses, in their statements recorded under Section 180 BNSS, have not levelled specific allegations against the accused petitioners. They have mainly named other accused persons in their statements. Learned counsel contends that after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed. The petitioners are in custody since their dates of arrest whereas trial will take time in its conclusion. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by counsel for the complainant has opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners. It is submitted that there are serious allegations against the accused persons as they set one unit of the [2025:RJ-JP:12302] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-4/2025] petrolpump on fire. However, the staff working on petrolpump somehow extinguished the fire and controlled it. This act of the accused persons may cause a big unfortunate happening. It is further submitted that in the CCTV footage collected during the course of investigation, the petitioner No.1 Dinesh Choudhary is seen beating Yatendra Pratap Singh with kicks. It is also contended that accused petitioner No.3. Vikas is also seen in the incident and he was driving the car in which the accused persons came to the place of incident. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. As per the analysis of videos collected during the course of investigation, accused petitioner Dinesh Choudhary along with accused Devraj @ Deva are seen beating Yatindra Pratap Singh with kicks. In this matter, it is alleged that the accused persons quarreled with the petrol pump staff and thereafter, set a unit of the petrolpump on fire by throwing some inflammable substance, which may cause danger to public at large. They also gave beatings to persons working there, which is prima facie, seen in the videos recovered during the course of investigation. Accused petitioner Dinesh Choudhary was seen participating in the crime while giving beatings to the complainant side. Thus, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner Dinesh Choudhary on bail. Accordingly, the instant bail application is dismissed qua petitioner no.1 Dinesh Choudhary. 6. However, there is no specific role, attributed to the accused petitioners Dinesh Godara and Vikas and only omnibus allegations have been levelled against both these petitioners. Thus, [2025:RJ-JP:12302] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-4/2025] considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners and the material made available before me in the form of charge sheet; main allegations are not appearing against them and only omnibus allegations are levelled against them; absence of criminal antecedents and trial will take time in its conclusion but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application qua Dinesh Godara S/o Shri Harish Chand and Vikas Choudhary S/lo Shri Parasram. 7. This bail application is accordingly partly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Dinesh Godara S/o Shri Harish Chand and Vikas Choudhary S/o Shri Parasram shall be released on bail provided each of them 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 each of them 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. 8. The observation made hereinabove is just for decision of this bail application and would not prejudice trial in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /733