[2025:RJ-JP:31687] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9092/2025 Chainraj S/o Laddulal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Nidardda, Police Station Surwal District Sawaimadhopur, Rjasthan. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail, Sawai Madhopur). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Balaut For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 13/08/2025 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.263/2024 registered at Police Station Soorwaal, District Sawai Madhopur for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2) of BNS, 2023, Sections 66C, 66D of IT Act, 2008 and Section 13 of the 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. Learned counsel submits that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. It is also evident from the case diary that no private person has made any complaint against the petitioner. He has been made an accused in this case solely on the basis of some applications found on his mobile phone. Counsel submits that co- [2025:RJ-JP:31687] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-9092/2025] accused Rinkulal has already been granted benefit of bail by this Court vide order dated 19.02.2025. It is submitted that trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. He argues that the petitioner is in custody since 30.06.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the 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 as also looking to the fact that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate; 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 the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner -Chainraj S/o Laddulal 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 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 [2025:RJ-JP:31687] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-9092/2025] police station. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, 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 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 application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /162