[2025:RJ-JP:28889] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8684/2025 Rahul S/o Hasan Mohammad, R/o Berla Police Station Jairoli Dis- trict Khairthal Tijara (The Accused Petitioner Is In Judicial Cus- tody At District Jail Khairthal-Tijara). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8685/2025 Ajad S/o Hasan Mohammad, R/o Berla Police Station Jairoli Dis- trict Khairthal Tijara (The Accused Petitioner Is In Judicial Cus- tody At District Jail Khairthal-Tijara). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP Mr. Vineet Dixit HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 30/07/2025 1. These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No. 41/2025 registered at Police Station Jairoli, District Bhiwadi for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 126(2) and 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. [2025:RJ-JP:28889] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-8684/2025] 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that cross cases have been registered between the parties. It is submitted that none of the injuries sustained by the injured has been opined as dangerous to life. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioners are in custody since 01.06.2025 and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. Counsel for the complainant submits that two other cases have also been registered against petitioner- Ajad. 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 fact that none of the injuries sustained by the injured has been opined as dangerous to life and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow these bail applications. 6. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners 1.) Rahul S/o Hasan Mohammad and 2.) Ajad S/o Hasan Mohammad shall be released on bail provided each of them 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 [2025:RJ-JP:28889] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-8684/2025] 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 every three months in the concerned police station. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioners. In case the petitioners fail to mark their presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 9. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for compliance. 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 them by this Court. 11. The observation made hereinabove is 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 pcg/297-298