[2025:RJ-JP:29318] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8023/2025 Lal Kumhar @ Rahul Prajapat S/o Sh. Ganesh Kumar Prajapat, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Near Electricity Office, Saran Tiraha, Railway Station Road, Bassi, Jaipur (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kamlendra Sihag For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Daulat Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 30/07/2025 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.267/2025 registered at Police Station Bassi, [Jaipur City (East)], District Jaipur City (East) for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 303(2), 140(4) & 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short ‘BNS’), 2023. Investigation is being conducted for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 309(6), 140(4) & 351(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor his test identification parade has been conducted by the Investigating [2025:RJ-JP:29318] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-8023/2025] Agency. Counsel submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel contends that petitioner is in custody since long and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that there is allegation against one Rinku Meena of transferring money in his account thereafter, money was transferred by Rinku Meena in the account of petitioner and other accused persons which is evident from the charge-sheet. 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 parties, especially considering the material available on record in the form of case diary as also considering the fact that petitioner has no criminal antecedents and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, 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 - Lal Kumhar @ Rahul Prajapat S/o Sh. Ganesh Kumar Prajapat, 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 [2025:RJ-JP:29318] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-8023/2025] 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. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in the concerned police station in first week of every month, till six months. 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. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 10. If any breach 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 him by this Court. 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 CHARU SONI /413