[2025:RJ-JP:37579] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4618/2025 Ramsawroop @ Guddu S/o Dhudaram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Kankadwali Dhani, Udaipuria Thana Samod, District Jaipur Rural (Raj.) ( Accused In Present Confined In District Jail Dausa) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10752/2025 Prithviraj S/o Hanuman Shahay, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 35, Balaji Vihar, Nadi Ka Fatak, Charan Nadi-Second, Murlipura, Jaipur (Raj.). (At Present Confined In District Jail, Dausa). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Santosh Guria Ms. Simran Bharti For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt. G.A. Mr. Ritesh Jain with Dr. Ramdeo Arya HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 16/09/2025 1. These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.633/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali (Dausa), District Dausa (Rajasthan) for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 458, 323 & 302 of IPC. [2025:RJ-JP:37579] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4618/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that co- accused namely- Pradeep Singh @ Pahadi Banna, Himanshu @ Bantu, Trivenishyam @ Vivek, Rajesh and Kamlesh @ Kamal have already been granted benefit of bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and co-accused namely- Akash @ Bhupesh has been granted benefit of bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court. Counsel submit that case of the present petitioners are on better footing. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submit that petitioner- Ramsawroop @ Guddu is in custody since 12.01.2024 whereas petitioner- Prithviraj is in custody since 23.06.2024 and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners and submits that petitioners are habitual offenders as several other cases have been registered against them. 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 parties, especially considering the fact that case of the present petitioners is almost similar to that of the co-accused persons who have already been granted benefit of bail by co- ordinate Bench of this Court as well as Hon’ble Supreme Court and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the [2025:RJ-JP:37579] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4618/2025] merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow these bail applications. 6. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners -(1) Ramsawroop @ Guddu S/o Dhudaram and (2) Prithviraj S/o Hanuman Shahay shall be released on bail provided each of them 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 they 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 these bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /59-60