[2025:RJ-JP:30259] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9085/2025 1. Balla S/o Shri Bijjo, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Vamanpura, Police Station Sadar Hindaun, District Karauli (Raj.) 2. Narsi S/o Shri Bijjo, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Vamanpura, Police Station Sadar Hindaun, District Karauli (Raj.) (The Accused Petitioners Presently Confined At Sub Jail, Hindaun, District Karauli). ----Accused-Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP and Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal, Adv., with Mr. Hari Ram Gurjar, Adv., for complainant. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 05/08/2025 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.110/2025 registered at Police Station Hindaun Sadar, District Karauli for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 190, 115(2), 126(2), 109(2) and 352 of BNS, 2023 and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that allegation of causing firearm is against co-accused Bhim Singh @ Bhimo, which is evident from the statement of injured Pillu and Radhey Shyam. He contends [2025:RJ-JP:30259] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-9085/2025] that charge-sheet has already been filed and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. He argues that the petitioners are in custody since 27.04.2025 and 28.03.2025 respectively and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. They submit that petitioners are duly named in the FIR and they have also actively participated in commission of crime. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that one criminal case has been registered against the petitioner-Balla and two criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner-Narsi. 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 the fact that allegation of causing firearm is against co-accused Bhim Singh @ Bhimo; charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take 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 the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners – 1. Balla S/o Shri Bijjo and 2. Narsi S/o Shri Bijjo 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 [2025:RJ-JP:30259] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-9085/2025] 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 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 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 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 MADAN/S-399