Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26995 (RAJ)

SURESH S/O RAKESH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/10274/2025 · 2025-08-28

Anil Kumar Upman

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:34432] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10274/2025 Suresh S/o Rakesh, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Chawna Wala Mohalla Sasni, Police Station Sasni, District Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, Presently Address Of Flat No. 003, Tower Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. (Presently Confined At District Jail, Alwar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Beena Sharma with Mr. Rishi Kant For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst. G.A. Ms. Nidhi Khandelwal 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 petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.226/2025 registered at Police Station Kherli, District Alwar for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 61(2)(a) and 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short, ‘BNS’), 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge- sheet in this matter. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that petitioner is an illiterate person and was an employee of co-accused- Akhlesh Kumar who is mastermind of [2025:RJ-JP:34432] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-10274/2025] this case. It is contended that documents of the petitioner have grossly been misused by co-accused by opening the firms in the name of petitioner. It is contended that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. It is argued that another co-accused, namely, Dayanand who has actively participated in commission of crime has been granted benefit of bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after considering the fact that complainant has entered into compromise with the petitioner. It is contended that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner of similar nature and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 16.05.2025 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 counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that firms are registered in the name of petitioner and he is the key person. 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 material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, as also considering the fact that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate, so also the fact that co-accused namely- Dayanand has already been granted benefit of bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after considering the fact that complainant has entered into compromise with the petitioner, there are no criminal [2025:RJ-JP:34432] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-10274/2025] antecedents against the petitioner of similar nature 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 this bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Suresh S/o Rakesh, shall be released on bail provided, he shall furnish 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 CHARU SONI /153