[2025:RJ-JP:35614] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11250/2025 Sanjay S/o Bhanwarlal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Gokulpura, Kalakh, Police Station Jobner, District Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Sambhar Lake, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11267/2025 Dinesh Kumar @ D.K. S/o Prahlad Sahai, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Kalakh, Police Station Jobner, District Jaipur (Raj.). (At Present Confined In Sub Jail, Sambharlake, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini Mr. Kailash Chand Verma For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Satish Balvada HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 03/09/2025 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 Sanhita (in short, ‘BNS’), 2023. After completion of investigation, [2025:RJ-JP:35614] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-11250/2025] 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 contended that no weapon has been recovered at the instance of petitioners. It is argued that similarly situated 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 except one criminal antecedent for the offences punishable under Sections 323 & 341 of IPC against petitioner Sanjay, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners. 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 25.01.2025 and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. They submit that petitioners are named in the FIR and they also actively participated in commission of crime. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:35614] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-11250/2025] counsel for the petitioners, as also considering the fact that allegation of causing injury is against above noted three persons; no recovery has been made at the instance of petitioners; similarly situated co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court; charge-sheet has been filed 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 these bail applications. 6. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners (1) Sanjay S/o Bhanwarlal, and (2) Dinesh Kumar @ D.K. S/o Prahlad Sahai, 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 [2025:RJ-JP:35614] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-11250/2025] 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. 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 CHARU SONI /312-313