[2025:RJ-JP:30867] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10041/2025 1. Ghanshyam @ Dhanna Valmiki S/o Omprakash, Aged about 23 years, Resident of Gopalpura, Police Station Kotputli, District Kotputli-Behror, Rajasthan. 2. Naveen S/o Phoochand, Aged 29 years, Resident of Jais- inghpura, Police Station Kotputli, District Kotputli-Behror, Ra- jasthan. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar for Mr. Kapil Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 08/08/2025 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.279/2025 registered at Police Station Kotputli, District Kotputli-Behror (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 326(g), 351(2) & 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023 and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks withdrawal of this bail application to the extent of accused-petitioner No.1- Ghanshyam @ Dhanna Valmiki S/o Omprakash. 3. Permission sought for is granted. [2025:RJ-JP:30867] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-10041/2025] 4. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed as withdrawn qua accused-petitioner No.1. 5. So far as accused-petitioner No.2 Naveen S/o Phoochand is concerned, counsel submits that he has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that petitioner is not named in the FIR. It is submitted that similarly situated co-accused persons namely- Karan Singh, Bharat and Rohit have already been granted benefit of bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.06.2025. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 03.06.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as four other cases have been registered against him. 7. I have considered the contentions. 8. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner, especially considering the fact that petitioner is not named in the FIR, as also considering the fact that similarly situated co-accused persons namely- Karan Singh, Bharat & Rohit 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 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:30867] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-10041/2025] 9. This bail application is accordingly partly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner No.2- Naveen S/o Phoochand, 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. 10. 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 LALIT MOHAN/369