HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 82/2025 Murli Manohar S/o Shri Badrilal, R/o Pancholi Mohalla, Mandola Ward Baran, P.s. Kotwali, District Baran, At Present House No. 496, Swami Vivekanand Nagar, P.s R.k. Puram, Kota City (Raj.) (Accused At Present Confined In Central Jail, Kota ) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samarth Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 08/01/2025 1. Petitioner has filed this bail application under Section 483 of BNSS. 2. F.I.R. No. 480/2022 was registered against the petitioner at Police Station Gumanpura, District Kota City (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC. Later on, the police filed the charge-sheet in this matter for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC and under Sections 3, 4, 5, & 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel further submits that on the basis of vague allegations, arrest of the petitioner has been made. Counsel further submits (2 of 3) [CRLMB-82/2025] that alleged offences are triable by magistrate. He further submits that other co-accused person has been granted regular bail by this court vide order dated 24.08.2024. Counsel further submits that number of cases have been registered against the petitioner and he has been arrested in connection thereof, by the investigating agency. Actually, he is in custody since May, 2022. However, in this case, arrest of the petitioner has been made on 08.05.2024. Charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take considerable time. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner is a habitual offender and several other cases have been registered against the petitioner. Thus, bail should not be granted. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially the fact that alleged offences are triable by magistrate; charge-sheet has been filed; as well as considering the period of custody, but without commenting anything on merits and demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 7. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Murli Manohar S/o Shri Badrilal 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 (3 of 3) [CRLMB-82/2025] 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. 8. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. 9. It is made clear that the accused petitioner shall not involve in any other similar offence during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station. 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 SHO concerned is directed to maintain a register recording attendance of the accused, as mentioned above. In case, the petitioner fails to mark his attendance as mentioned above, the SHO shall intimate the trial court immediately. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J ANANDTANWAR/37