[2025:RJ-JP:1564] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 231/2025 Rohit S/o Late Rajesh Kumar, R/o E-32, Ranjeet Nagar, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). (At Present Confined In Central Jail Bharatpur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 232/2025 Mohit Singh @ Reslar S/o Kundan Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o 3 Thok Dungra, Police Station Udyog Nagar, District Bharatpur (Raj.) (At Present Central Jail, Bharatpur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 318/2025 Lakhan Lavaniyan Son Of Manoj Lavaniyan, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Gopalgarh Civil Line School Ke Pichhe, Police Station Mathuragate, District Bharatpur (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Sub Jail, Sewar, District Bharatpur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himmat Singh Bikarwar Mr. Gordhan Singh Fauzdar Ms. Chhavi Chaturvedi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order [2025:RJ-JP:1564] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-231/2025] 10/01/2025 1. The accused-petitioners have filed the present bail applications under Section 483 B.N.S.S. arising out of F.I.R. No.271/2024 registered with the Police Station Kotwali Bharatpur, District Bharatpur for offence under Sections 302, 115 & 120-B IPC. 2. Heard. 3. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the challan papers. 4. This Court while considering the bail applications bearing Nos.11073/2024 (Lokesh S/o Jahan Singh), 12467/2024 (Ballu @ Balram S/o Shri Kailash Chand), 13600/2024 (Shubham Saraswat S/o Chetan Swaroop) & 15839/2024 (Paramveer S/o Hardam Singh), observed as under:- "4. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the challan papers as well as the affidavit of the Superintendent of High Security Jail, Ajmer. 5. The nature of allegations levelled against the accused-petitioners is that on instruction from one Pankaj Jagheena, who was confined in High Security Jail, Ajmer, they were preparing for committing murder of one Prabhav, Lucky and Himmat, who are the members of the opposite gang of Kripal Jagheena. In the investigation report, it has been mentioned by the Investigating Officer that Pankaj Jagheena was having conversation on mobile phone from inside the jail with some of the accused-petitioners on various occasions, in between a period of about four months. It has also been stated that Pankaj Jagheena had conversation on mobile phone with accused-petitioner- Balram Jagheena from 24.01.2024 to 25.05.2024 for about 262 times and likewise he had conversation with [2025:RJ-JP:1564] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-231/2025] other accused persons namely; Rohit Hatheni, Mohit Wrestler, Shubham etc. 6. This Court vide order dated 02.12.2024 called explanation from the Superintendent High Security Jail, Ajmer as to how Pankaj Jagheena, who is confined in jail, is able to have conversation on cell phone with some of the accused-petitioners who are outside the jail and further to explain how Pankaj Jagheena managed the mobile phone to charge it’s battery for a long period of about four months. 7. The Superintendent of High Security Jail, Ajmer has submitted the affidavit with the details and the criminal cases registered in regard to seizure of mobile, charger etc. from the prisoners. 8. If any person who is facilitating the prisoner outside the jail by providing mobile phone, cell phone, battery or charger to have conversation with the outside person in committing some offence, is like abetment of an offence, punishable with death or imprisonment for life. If the offence not committed which is punishable under Section 115 of IPC, then the persons who are facilitating in the conversation by providing the cell phone and other equipments, would also be accused under purview of Section 120-B of IPC, but no such person has been arrayed as an accused by the Police. In such circumstances, possibility of implication of the accused-petitioners on false and fabricated facts, cannot be ruled out. The accused- petitioners are in custody for last more than 4-5 months and the Police after completion of investigation has submitted charge-sheet in the matter and apart from the abetment of commission of offence, no actual offence has been committed by the accused-petitioners." 5. On considering the investigation report, this Court finds that the case of the present accused-petitioners is in no manner distinguishable from the case of above named co-accused, who have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2024. 6. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances [2025:RJ-JP:1564] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-231/2025] of the case, more particularly the fact that co-accused, named above, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2024 and the accused-petitioners are in custody for last more than four months, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail. 7. Accordingly, the present bail applications are allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court or any other Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 8. Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in each connected file. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /42-44