[2025:RJ-JP:37535] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11251/2025 Rajkumar @ Raj S/o Pappuram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Lochabo Ki Dhani, Aala Ka Bass, Ps-Jobner, District Jaipur (Petitioner Is Confined In Sub Jail, Sambhar Lake). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11579/2025 Rahul S/o Babulal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Meeno Ka Mohalla, Jobner, Police Station Jobner, District Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Sub Jail, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Pareek Mr. Rakesh Mr. Nitin Jain For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Assistant GA Mr. Satish Kumar Balwada 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.14/2025 registered at Police Station Jobner, District Jaipur Rural for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 324(4) & 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya [2025:RJ-JP:37535] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-11251/2025] Sanhita (in short, ‘BNS’), 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 324(4), 351(2) & 103(1) of BNS. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that several persons have been named in FIR but as per charge-sheet, allegation of causing injury is appearing against only three persons, namely- Sonu Gurjar, Vishnu Meena and Jitendra Meena. It is submitted that other co-accused persons, namely, Ashok, Kartar, Vijendra, Bhanwarlal @ Mayank, Rahul @ Kalora and Gajendra @ Gajju have been granted benefit of bail by this Court. It is argued that charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. It is submitted that petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. They submit that two other cases have been registered against the petitioner-Rajkumar @ Raj. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, as also considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet wherein allegation of causing injury is against above noted three persons and the fact [2025:RJ-JP:37535] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-11251/2025] that aforementioned co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court; 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 these bail applications. 6. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners (1) Rajkumar @ Raj S/o Pappuram & 2) Rahul S/o Babulal, 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. It is made clear that the accused-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioners, as directed above. In case the petitioners fail to mark their 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. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. [2025:RJ-JP:37535] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-11251/2025] 10. If any breach 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 them by this Court. 11. 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 GAUTAM JAIN /37-38