[2025:RJ-JP:36174] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11384/2025 Hansram @ Hansa S/o Munsi, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Nidhara, Police Station Bari Sadar, District Dholpur (Rajasthan). (Presently Lodged In District Jail Dholpur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Poonia with Mr. Anikate Jangid Mr. Aasharam For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Aviyash Dhanju HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 09/09/2025 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.53/2025 registered at Police Station Bari Sadar, District Dholpur for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 119(1), 351(2), 352, 125 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that co-accused namely- Sheeshram has already been granted benefit of bail by co-ordinate bench of this court after considering the fact that parties have resolved their dispute amicably. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since [2025:RJ-JP:36174] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-11384/2025] his date of arrest 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 eight other cases have been registered against him. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute the factum of compromise and he has no objection if this bail application is allowed. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially considering the fact that parties have resolved their dispute amicably, so also the fact that aforementioned co-accused person has 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. 7. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner – Hansram @ Hansa S/o Munsi 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 Court and any Court to [2025:RJ-JP:36174] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-11384/2025] which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 8. 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 GAUTAM JAIN /133