[2025:RJ-JP:8946] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7356/2024 Indraj @ Kala S/o Meharchand, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Shahpur Police Station Khairthal District Khairthal-Tijara. At Present In Sub Jail, Kishangarhbas, ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through The PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Kumar Saini, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 28/02/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.90/2024 registered at Police Station Khairthal, District Khairthal-Tijara (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that the entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and no incriminating evidence is appearing on record against the petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner has been arrested only on the basis of some CCTV footage wherein two persons are appearing in a tempo. However, they are not clearly visible in the footage. Thereafter, in another CCTV footage, petitioner has been identified while pulling a similar tempo. It is [2025:RJ-JP:8946] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-7356/2024] submitted that on the basis of these evidence, petitioner has been arrested on 16.03.2024. It is evident from the charge-sheet that persons who are appearing in the CCTV footage along with tempo are not clearly visible. According to the post-mortem report, cause of death is asphyxia on account of blockage of respiratory passage due to mud. It has also been opined that deceased had consumed alcohol prior to his death. Charge-sheet has been filed and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. There is one criminal antecedent against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 4/25 of Arms Act wherein he is on bail. 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. He submits that offences have been found proved against the petitioner as he was captured in the CCTV footage along with deceased. 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 both the parties, as also considering the material available before me in the form of charge-sheet, role attributed to the petitioner; trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, 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 - Indraj @ Kala S/o Meharchand, shall [2025:RJ-JP:8946] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-7356/2024] 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 observation made herein above is 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 /71