[2025:RJ-JP:30458] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8864/2025 1. Mumtaz S/o Haneef, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Bas Dayna, Police Station Sikari, District Deeg, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Deeg, Dist. Deeg). 2. Almiraj @ Madina S/o Haneef, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Bas Dayna, Police Station Sikari, District Deeg, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Deeg, Dist. Deeg). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Khizer Iqbal Khan For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 07/08/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.119/2025 registered at Police Station Deeg, District Deeg for the offences punishable under Sections 111(6), 303(2), 317(2), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 308(2) & 61(2)(a) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short, ‘BNS’) 2023 and Section 66D of I.T. (Amended) Act, 2008. Investigation is being conducted for the offences punishable under Sections 116(2), 303(2), 317(2), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) & 61(2)(a) of BNS, 2023 and Section 66D of I.T. (Amended) Act, 2008. [2025:RJ-JP:30458] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-8864/2025] 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that other co-accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is contended that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel argues that petitioners are in custody since 19.06.2025 and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the 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 fact that other co-accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners 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 proper to allow this bail application. 6. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners – (1) Mumtaz S/o Haneef, and (2) Almiraj @ Madina S/o Haneef, shall be released on bail provided, each of them shall furnish 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 [2025:RJ-JP:30458] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-8864/2025] 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. 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 CHARU SONI /220