[2025:RJ-JP:14446] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 64/2025 Aarif S/o Sorab, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Bavala, Police Station Tavdu, District Nuh Haryana. (At Present Accused In Judicial Custody At District Jail Deeg). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajad Ahmad For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Dhakad, PP Mr. Jitender Singh, C.I. (Investigating Officer), P.S. Kumher, District Deeg (Raj.) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 28/03/2025 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.485/2024 registered at Police Station Kumher, District Deeg (Rajasthan) for the offence punishable under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 121(1), 132 & 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023, Section 3/25(6) of Arms Act and Section 5/8 of Rajasthan Bovine Animals (Prohibition of Slaughter & Regulation of Temporary Migration & Export), Act, 1995. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that no incriminating evidence was available with the Investigating Officer [2025:RJ-JP:14446] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-64/2025] to make arrest of the petitioner. Counsel submits that petitioner has been charge-sheeted in this matter only on the ground that petitioner has been identified by four police personnel namely Devi Singh, Nekpal, Vikram & Ghanshyam. Counsel submits that in this matter, an application was submitted by the father of the deceased wherein he mentioned that his son was murdered in an conspiracy by Naresh. Counsel submits that said Naresh has been charge-sheeted in this matter for the offences punishable under Section 5/8 of Rajasthan Bovine Animals (Prohibition of Slaughter & Regulation of Temporary Migration & Export), Act, 1995. Counsel submits that in the FIR, it was alleged that during the course of routine patrolling, police party found one tempo bearing registration No. RJ-05-GC-0757 was going at high speed. Counsel submits that on suspicion, this tempo was chased by the police personnel but driver of the tempo did not stop the tempo. Counsel submits that at about 2.30 am, tempo reached near one pickup in which some cows were loaded. Suddenly, people sitting the pickup started gun fire which caused death of the driver of the tempo. Counsel submits that other person who was found in tempo, discloses his name as Naresh and persons who were in the pickup, ran away from the spot. Counsel submits that immediately, matter was reported to the other police stations and barricading was led. The said pickup was signaled to stop but people in the pickup opened gun fire on the police party therefore, in counter, gun fire was opened by the police party also but somehow, people in the pickup managed to escape. Counsel submits that said incident was also reported by the police for which separate FIR was registered [2025:RJ-JP:14446] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-64/2025] on the information furnished by the police personnel who have allegedly identified the petitioner but surprisingly, there is no mention in the FIR that they can identify the persons who were in the pickup. Counsel contends that actual sequence of events have not been mentioned in the FIR. Petitioner is in custody since 31.07.2024 and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer of bail made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that it is a serious matter wherein not only only one person has died but there is allegation against the petitioner that on two occasions, petitioner and other people opened gun fire on the police party. 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 prima facie, actual sequence of events have not been mentioned in the FIR; material available on record in the form of charge-sheet; period of custody and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Aarif S/o Sorab 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 [2025:RJ-JP:14446] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-64/2025] 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 once in every three months in the concerned police station. 8. 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. 9. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 10. Any 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 LALIT MOHAN /94