[2025:RJ-JP:29430] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7762/2025 Vishnu S/o Ramdhan Gurjar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Kasba Pahadi, Police Station Pahadi, District Deeg, Rajasthan. (Currently In Sub-Jail, Deeg, Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8759/2025 Hemendra S/o Samundar, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Lodha Mohalla, Kasba Pahari, Police Station Pahari, District Deeg, Rajasthan. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail Deeg). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8760/2025 1. Rakesh S/o Magiya, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Bodoli Dehr P.s. Pahari, District Deeg, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In District Jail, Deeg). 2. Dev Singh @ Devi S/o Kesari, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Bodoli Dehr P.s. Pahari, District Deeg, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In District Jail, Deeg). ----Petitioners Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar Mr. Ankit Khandelwal Mr. Mrityunjya Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S Dhakar, PP Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 01/08/2025 1. These instant bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested [2025:RJ-JP:29430] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-7762/2025] in connection with FIR No.109/2025 registered at Police Station Pahari, District Deeg for the offence punishable under Section 309(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that no evidence is available on record to connect the petitioners with the alleged offences. It is submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel contend that petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 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 petitioners, especially considering the material available before me in the form of case diary and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow these bail applications. 6. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners –1) Vishnu S/o Ramdhan Gurjar, 2) Hemendra S/o Samundar, 3) Rakesh S/o Magiya, and 4) Dev Singh @ Devi S/o Kesari, shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of [2025:RJ-JP:29430] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-7762/2025] 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 the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that they 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-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence once in three months in the concerned police station. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioners, as directed above. In case the petitioners fail to mark their 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 them by this Court. 10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the instant bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J DIKSHA MISHRA /199-201