[2025:RJ-JP:1107] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11465/2024 Ramswaroop S/o Litru, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Badara, Police Station Shahbad, District Baran. (At Present Confined In District Jail Baran) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Pandey, Adv., with Mr. Virendra Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakad, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 08/01/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.166/2022 registered at Police Station Shahbad, District Baran for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 302, 504 & 506 of IPC. Later on, Police has filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 307, 302, 504, 506, 324, 325 & 452 of IPC. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that complainant-injured PW-4 Tijo Bai has been examined during course of trial and she has not supported the prosecution case. He further submits that other material witnesses have also been declared hostile. He argues that [2025:RJ-JP:1107] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-11465/2024] charge-sheet has already been filed, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial of the case will take considerable time. He contends that the petitioner is in custody since 14.12.2022 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. He submits that two witnesses namely Bhimraj and Vinod have supported the prosecution case. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it appears from the testimony of the injured witnesses that Bhimraj and Vinod were not eye witnesses of the incident as they reached at the place of incident after commission of alleged incident. 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 the fact that injured- complainant PW-4 Tijo Bai has been declared hostile; charge- sheet has been filed; absence of criminal antecedents and trial will take 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 Ramswaroop S/o Litru 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 [2025:RJ-JP:1107] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-11465/2024] Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he 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. 8. The observation made hereinabove is 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 MADAN/65