[2025:RJ-JP:36877] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11621/2025 1. Sourabh S/o Sh. Satyaveer Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Bibasar, P.s. Sadar Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) ( At Present In J.c. At District Jail Jhunjhunu) 2. Praveen Kumar @ Pradeep S/o Sh. Prabhudayal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Nayabas Post Sankhan Taal, P.s. Hameerwas. District Churu. At Present Tenant At Road No. 3, Shiv Colony, Behind Hero Agency, P.s. Kotwali Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (At Present In J.c. At District Jail Jhunjhunu) 3. Dalip @ Lala S/o Ramniwas, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Angasar,p.s. Sadar Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu ( Raj.) ( At Present In J.c. At District Jail Jhunjhunu) ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Majhar Hussain For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 11/09/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.38/2025 registered at Police Station Sadar Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 324(4), 326(g), 333, 305(a) & 331(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that alleged offences are triable by [2025:RJ-JP:36877] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-11621/2025] Magistrate and petitioners have nothing to do with the alleged offences. Counsel submits that on account of money dispute, present FIR has been lodged. Counsel submits that co-accused namely- Ajay Kumar Bhuria has already been granted benefit of bail by this Court. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits 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 opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that co-accused was granted benefit of bail after considering the fact that he was not named in the FIR. He submits that petitioner No.1 is named in the FIR and presence of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 was found at the place of incident by the Investigating Agency. He further 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 petitioners, as also the fact that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, 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-petitioners -(1) Sourabh S/o Sh. Satyaveer Singh, (2) Praveen Kumar @ Pradeep S/o Sh. Prabhudayal [2025:RJ-JP:36877] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-11621/2025] and (3) Dalip @ Lala S/o Ramniwas 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. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioners. In case the petitioners fail to mark their presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 9. 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. 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 LALIT MOHAN /247