[2025:RJ-JP:31372] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8907/2025 Leeladhar S/o Ramswaroop, R/o Kichalheda, Police Station Kaithun, District Kota (Raj.). (Presently Confined In Sub Jail At Ramganjmandi). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9260/2025 Giriraj S/o Mohanlal, R/o Kichalheda, Police Station Kaithun, District Kota (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Kota) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Tanwar, Adv., with Mr. Rajveer Singh Jhala, Adv., and Mr. Nitin Kumar Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Shubham Kumar Sain, AAAG and Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam, Adv., for complainant. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 12/08/2025 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.82/2025 registered at Police Station Deoli Manjhi, District Kota Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2) and 126(2) of BNS, 2023. After [2025:RJ-JP:31372] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-8907/2025] completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 117(3) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submit that according to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, causing injury on the eye of the injured is against co-accused Anil. They further submit that there is omnibus allegation against the petitioners. They argue that charge-sheet has already been filed and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. They contend that the petitioners are in custody since 19.06.2025 and 24.06.2025 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. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioners are duly named in the FIR and they have actively participated in the commission of crime. 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 grievous injury is against co-accused Anil; 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 [2025:RJ-JP:31372] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-8907/2025] on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow these bail applications. 6. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners – 1. Leeladhar S/o Ramswaroop, and 2. Giriraj S/o Mohanlal 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 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. The observation made herein above is only for decision of these instant bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/125-126