[2025:RJ-JP:37648] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.10526/2025 Vishnu S/o Darshan Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Ajan, Police Station Kumher, District Deeg. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Bharatpur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11766/2025 1. Akash S/o Manoj, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Peeraka, Police Station Jaluki, District Deeg. (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Deeg). 2. Vikas S/o Manoj, R/o Village Peeraka, Police Station Jaluki, District Deeg. (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Deeg). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aniket Sharma, Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP with Mr. Shubham Kumar Sain, AAAG Mr. Amit Jindal Adv. with Ms. Dipti Jindal, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 16/09/2025 1. These instant bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. on behalf of accused-petitioners. The accused- petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No.310/2024, registered at Police Station Deeg, District Deeg, for [2025:RJ-JP:37648] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-10526/2025] the offence(s) under Sections 191(2), 190, 137(2), 115(2), 324(4), 324(5), 351(2), 351(3), 308(2) and 308(6) of BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the accused- petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that no identification parade was conducted by the Police. The charge- sheet against the petitioners have already been submitted and the statement of PW.2- Peeyush Garg, has also been recorded. It is further contended that the other co-accused Kavita @ Kannu has already been enlarged on bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.07.2025 and that the case of the present petitioner stands on a better footing from the other co-accused Kavita @ Kannu. It is also urged that the FIR was lodged after a delay of 10 days and no recovery of any video was effected from the possession of the petitioners indicating that the petitioners prepared the said videos along with the other co-accused Kavita @ Kannu and no recovery of any article was effected from the petitioners possession, the accused-petitioners are in custody since long and the trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioners may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant have vehemently opposed the grant of bail applications and contended that the bail application of the other co-accused Rahul @ Chandraveer was dismissed by this Court upon merit on 11.02.2025 after considering the presence of petitioners at the place of occurrence is corroborated by the call details collected by the Police. The accused-petitioners were not known to the complainant Peeyush Garg and Peeyush Garg in the FIR as well as in his Court [2025:RJ-JP:37648] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-10526/2025] statement has clearly stated that the petitioners along with the other co-accused demanded ransom and also assaulted him, the statements of important witness Satyendra Singh is yet to be recorded. It is also contended that the bail of the other co-accused Kavita @ Kannu was obtained after concealing the material facts and for the same, the complainant has already moved an application for cancellation of her bail. The allegation against the petitioners are grave as the petitioners demand ransom after putting the complainant in fear and falsely implicated him in a case of rape, therefore, considering the above facts, the bail application of the accused-petitioners may be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. It is alleged against the petitioners along with the other co- accused that they kidnapped the complainant and after beating him demanded ransom. PW.2 Peeyush Garg in his Court statement has corroborated the prosecution story. At this juncture, it is not desirable for the Court to comment upon the credibility of the witnesses. The important witness Satyendra Singh is yet to be examined, therefore considering the above aspects this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail. 6. Accordingly, these instant bail applications filed by the accused-petitioners are hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-7-8