[2025:RJ-JP:6198] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 226/2025 Suresh S/o Ballo, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Aarsi, Police Station Nagar, District Deeg (Raj.). (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail Deeg). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Sinsinwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 04/02/2025 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.569/2024 registered at Police Station Kaman, District Deeg (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 121(1), 132, 109(1) of BNS, Sections 3 & 25(6) of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 121(1), 132, 109(1), 3(5) of BNS, Sections 3, 25(6) & 5/27 of Arms Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that the allegations levelled in the FIR of opening gunfire upon the police party is absolutely wrong. He submits that as a matter of fact, the petitioner himself got injured by the gun-shot of the police party. Petitioner is in custody since [2025:RJ-JP:6198] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-226/2025] 30.09.2024. Charge-sheet has been filed & trial of the case will take time in its conclusion. Counsel further submits that no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite time period. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that there is serious allegation against the petitioner that he opened gunfire upon the police party. However, as life protecting jacket was worn by the concerned SHO at the time of incident, he could somehow save himself. He further submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as 46 other cases have been registered against him. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar and looking to the seriousness of allegations attributed to the petitioner as also considering the previous criminal antecedents of the petitioner, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed. 7. The observations 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 GAUTAM JAIN /363