[2025:RJ-JP:23687] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8093/2025 Rohitash S/o Indraj, Aged 29 Years, R/o Lujota, Police Station Nangal Choudhary, District Mahendragarh Hariyana. (Presently Accused Petitioner is in District Jail at Sikar ( Raj.) ----Accused Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, P.P. with Mr. Manvendra Singh, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN (V. J.) Judgment / Order 27/06/2025 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.0233/2024 registered at Police Station Patan (Sikar), District Neem Ka Thana for the offence punishable under Section 189 (2), 329(3), 308(5) & 352 of BNS, 2023. Later on, Police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that false allegation of giving threat to the complainant has been levelled against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that other co-accused persons namely Ram Singh, Rakesh @ Bholu and Satpal Gurjar have been granted benefit of bail by the learned trial Court. Learned counsel submits that the bail application filed by the petitioner has been rejected [2025:RJ-JP:23687] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-8093/2025] by the learned trial Court solely on the basis of the fact that other criminal cases have also been registered against him. Learned counsel submits that mere pendency of other cases cannot be a ground for rejecting the bail application. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has already been acquitted in six cases out of ten cases registered against him. He further argues that charge-sheet has already been filed and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. He contends that the 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 criminal cases have 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 other co-accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by the learned trial Court and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody and filing of charge-sheet, 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 - Rohitash S/o Indraj shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two [2025:RJ-JP:23687] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-8093/2025] sureties in the sum of ₹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 first and third week of every month in the concerned police station, 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 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN (V. J.)),J Manish/34