[2025:RJ-JP:37794] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9681/2025 1. Sukhvinder Singh S/o Shri Preetam Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Raswara Police Station Naugava District Alwar, Rajasthan. (Petitioner Is In Judicial Custody In Central Jail, Alwar). 2. Sandeep S/o Shri Surendra Singh, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Todiyar Police Station Vijay Mandir District Alwar, Rajasthan. (Petitioner Is In Judicial Custody In Central Jail Alwar). 3. Balvinder Singh @ Babbu S/o Shri Jeet Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Raswara Police Station Naugava District Alwar, Rajasthan. (Petitioner Is In Judicial Custody In Central Jail, Alwar). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta with Ms. Shweta Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 16/09/2025 1. This bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.264/2025 registered at Police Station Naugawan, District Alwar for offences punishable under Sections 112(2), 318(2), 316(2) & 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short, ‘BNS’) 2023, Section 66D of I.T. Act and Section 13 of [2025:RJ-JP:37794] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-9681/2025] Rajasthan Public Gambling Ordinance, 1949. 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. It is submitted that there is allegation against the petitioners that they were involved in online betting and at the time of raid, petitioner- Sandeep was found in possession of Rs.3,58,800/-. It is contended that except one criminal antecedent against petitioner- Sukhvinder for offences punishable under Sections 380 and 457 of IPC, no other case is pending against the petitioners. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioners are in custody since 13.07.2025 and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 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 petitioners, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, as also considering the nature of allegations and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. [2025:RJ-JP:37794] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-9681/2025] 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners – (1) Sukhvinder Singh S/o Shri Preetam Singh, (2) Sandeep S/o Shri Surendra Singh, and (3) Balvinder Singh @ Babbu S/o Shri Jeet Singh, 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 observations made hereinabove are only for decision of this bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /118