[2025:RJ-JP:33765] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10712/2025 Siddhu Sadab S/o Mohammed Nizam, R/o 11 Naya Basera Chhoti Kajrani Indore Rajasthan. (At Present Confined At Central Jail Kota). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, Addl.G.A. with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 26/08/2025 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.31/2023 registered at Devli Manjhi, District Kota Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 399 & 402 of IPC and Sections 3/25 & 4/25 of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 399 & 402 of IPC and Section 3/25 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 there is allegation against the petitioner and other co-accused persons that they were planning to commit dacoity. It is submitted that other co-accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Learned counsel argues that trial court has denied [2025:RJ-JP:33765] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-10712/2025] benefit of bail to the petitioner solely on the basis of the fact that other cases have also been registered against him. It is contended that petitioner is in custody since 05.02.2023 and as such, he has already suffered incarceration of about 2 years and 6 months and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as 26 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; considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge- sheet, as also considering the fact that other co-accused persons 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. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Siddhu Sadab S/o Mohammed Nizam, 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 [2025:RJ-JP:33765] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-10712/2025] 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. It is made clear that petitioner shall not involve in similar offence and shall mark his presence in the concerned police station every week till conclusion of trial. It is further directed that petitioner shall share his mobile number (in use) to the trial court and Investigating Agency and he shall not switch off his phone. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner, as directed above. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 9. If breach of any of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner by this Court. 10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. 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/217