[2025:RJ-JP:34437] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9942/2025 1. Hemraj S/o Surjan, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Alat Wali Dhani Ramnagar Rewadi, P.S. Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa (Raj.) 2. Dharamraj S/o Nanagram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Byadwalon Ki Dhani, Ramnagar Rewadi, P.S. Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa (Raj.) (At Present Confined In District Jail Dausa). ----Accused-Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohar Pal Meena, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP and Mr. Chaman Singh, Adv., for complainant. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 28/08/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.22/2025 registered at Police Station Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 126(2), 115(2), 303(2), 103(1) and 351(2) 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 submits that death of the lady was an unfortunate accident. He further submits that during course of [2025:RJ-JP:34437] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-9942/2025] trial, complainant of this case has been examined. He has not supported the prosecution case and he has been declared hostile. He argues that co-accused persons namely Mohan Lal @ Chhote Lal, Raprasad @ Prasadi, Devi Lal, Deviraj @ Dhodya @ Devnarayan and Ramkishore have already been granted benefit of bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. He further argues that trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. He argues that the petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute the factum of compromise. 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 complainant of this case has been declared hostile during course of trial; co-accused persons have been granted benefit of bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and trial will take 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-petitioners – 1. Hemraj S/o Surjan, and 2. Dharamraj S/o Nanagram shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- [2025:RJ-JP:34437] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-9942/2025] (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 hereinabove is 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/180