Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2510 (RAJ)

SONU KUMAR S/O SHRI CHOTELAL MEENA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/98/2025 · 2025-01-10

Anil Kumar Upman

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:1693] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 98/2025 Sonu Kumar S/o Shri Chotelal Meena, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Patti Khurd (Beechli Patti) Bamanwas, Police Station Bamanwas, District Gangapur City, At Present Tenant At House No. 107, Gree Park, Najad Vinayak Enclave, Police Station Ramnagariya, District Jaipur City (East), Raj. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gaurav Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 10/01/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the accused-petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.0632/2024 registered at Police Station Ramnagariya, Jaipur City (East) for the offences under Sections 331(4) & 305(a) of B.N.S., 2023. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. The [2025:RJ-JP:1693] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-98/2025] petitioner is in custody since his date of arrest 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. He submits that one other case of similar nature has also been registered against 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; especially considering the fact that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate; 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 - Sonu Kumar S/o Shri Chotelal Meena 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. 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 once in three months in the concerned police station. [2025:RJ-JP:1693] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-98/2025] 8. If breach of this condition 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 petitioner by this Court. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN), J Sunita/278