[2025:RJ-JP:31234] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8817/2025 Rahul Gupta S/o Anant Gupta, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vikramjot, Police Station Chhawani Basti, Up, Presently R/o Bilaspur, Police Station Bilaspur, District Gurgaon, Haryana. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Alwar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Prasad Rawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 12/08/2025 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. 08/2025 registered at Police Station Choupanki, District Bhiwadi (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1) and 310(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offence punishable under Section 310(3) of BNS, 2023. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that no evidence is available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. Counsel submits that petitioner has been made accused in this case solely on the basis [2025:RJ-JP:31234] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-8817/2025] of police interrogation of the co-accused persons. Counsel submits that one other case has also been registered against the petitioner wherein he is on bail. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 10.01.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruit purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. He submits that petitioner was in constant touch with the co-accused persons who are clearly visible in the CCTV installed at the place of incident. Counsel further submits that petitioner actively participated in commission of crime thus, benefit of bail should not be granted to 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 parties, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, as also considering the role attributed to the petitioner thus, looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed. 7. 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 LALIT MOHAN /107