[2025:RJ-JP:35945] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7265/2025 Banti Prajapat S/o Hajarilal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o House No. 46, Opposite Police Chowaki, Bajarang Nagar, P.s. Borkheda, Kota. (At Present Confined In District Jail Kota). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Kumar for Mr. Amit Dadhich For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP with Mr. Shubham Kumar Sain, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 08/09/2025 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.310/2024 registered at Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, District Kota City for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 189(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘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 petitioner is not named in FIR and he has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of interrogation/investigation of co-accused persons. It is submitted that co-accused persons namely- Ajay Pareta and Rahul Meena @ Golu have already been granted benefit of bail by co-ordinate [2025:RJ-JP:35945] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-7265/2025] bench of this court. Trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits 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 learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as ten other cases have been registered against him. 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 petitioner, especially the fact that petitioner is not named in FIR, so also the fact that aforementioned co-accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by co-ordinate bench of this court and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion, 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 – Banti Prajapat S/o Hajarilal 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. [2025:RJ-JP:35945] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-7265/2025] 7. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court. The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station in first week of every month, 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 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 breach of any 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 the petitioner by this Court. 10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. The observations made hereinabove are 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 GAUTAM JAIN /72