Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23653 (RAJ)

VISHNU @ CHUNYA S/O BOLTIRAM v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/8693/2025 · 2025-07-29

Anil Kumar Upman

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:28780] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8693/2025 Vishnu @ Chunya S/o Boltiram, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Gothda Ka Tapra, Khandoj, Police Station Kundera, District Sawai Madhopur. (At Present Confined In District Jail, Sawai Madhopur). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Jain Mr. Durgesh Kumar Jangid For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 29/07/2025 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.59/2025 registered at Police Station Kundera, District Sawai Madhopur for the offences punishable under Sections 61(2)(a), 316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338 & 340(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023, Sections 66C & 66D of I.T. Act (Amended), 2008 and Section 13 of Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. It is contended that no complaint has been made against the petitioner by any private person. It is contended that co-accused Anil, from [2025:RJ-JP:28780] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-8693/2025] whose possession two mobile phones have been recovered, has already been granted benefit of bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is argued that petitioner has no criminal antecedents of similar nature and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 29.05.2025 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. 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 alleged offences are triable by Magistrate; co-accused Anil has been granted benefit of bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court; petitioner has no criminal antecedents of similar nature as well as looking to the period of custody, 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 – Vishnu @ Chunya S/o Boltiram, 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 the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any [2025:RJ-JP:28780] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-8693/2025] 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 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. 10. Office is directed to send copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /311