[2025:RJ-JP:32305] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9854/2025 Bhanu Pratap Meena S/o Shri Hansraj Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Gadhi Badhwa, Tehsil Hindaun City, Police Station Hindaun City, District Karauli (Raj.). (The Accused Petitioner Presently Confined At Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Adv., with Ms. Chanchal, Adv., and Mr. Utkarsh Goyal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP and Mr. D.K. Dixit, Adv., for complainant. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 18/08/2025 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.904/2022 registered at Police Station Pratap Nagar, District Jaipur City (East) for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 109, 120B and 212 of IPC. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that neither petitioner is named in the FIR nor in the statement of eye-witnesses namely, Sandeep Meena, who is informant/complainant and Pikraj Solanki. It is submitted that [2025:RJ-JP:32305] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-9854/2025] admittedly, no test identification parade was conducted during the course of investigation. According to the initial statement of eye- witness namely, Pikraj Solanki, seven persons chased the deceased. He argues that police filed charge-sheet in this matter against 18 persons. It is submitted that petitioner has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of police interrogation of other co-accused persons. Thereafter, arrest of the petitioner was made on 29.05.2023. He contends that entire case has been set up against the petitioner during the course of trial by both the eye-witnesses who named the petitioner in their testimony. He further contends that similarly situated co-accused persons namely- Vivek Meena, Yadram Meena and Madan Mohan Meena @ M.D. have already been granted benefit of bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. He further argues that alleged recovery of sword has been made after six months of the alleged incident therefore, presence of human blood on the sword has no significance. He further submits that till date, only 6 witnesses have been examined out of 35 cited prosecution witnesses thus, there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future and further custody of the petitioner 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 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 [2025:RJ-JP:32305] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-9854/2025] counsel for the parties, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, as also considering the fact that petitioner is not named in the FIR and when eye-witnesses were initially examined, they also did not mention his name, so also the fact that similarly situated co- accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court 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 the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Bhanu Pratap Meena S/o Shri Hansraj 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. 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 MADAN/S-326