[2025:RJ-JP:2185] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11599/2024 1. Priyanshu Meena Son Of Shri Bhagwan Sahay Meena, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Sop, Police Station Nadoti, District Karauli (Raj.) (The Accused Petitioner Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur) 2. Santosh Kumar @ Baccha Nangal Son Of Shri Prithviraj Meena, Resident Of Village Nangal Sherpur, Police Station Balghat, District Karauli (Raj.) (The Accused Petitioner Presently Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 16/01/2025 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.765/2022 registered at Police Station Shivdaspura, District Jaipur City (South) for the offences under Section 392 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet for offences under Sections 395 & 120B IPC has been filed in the Court concerned. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that according to the prosecution case, after snatching the car from the victim, the petitioners run away in [2025:RJ-JP:2185] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-11599/2024] that car. Learned counsel further submits that neither identification parade got conducted in this matter nor the subject car was recovered from the possession of the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that the car was recovered in an abandoned condition on 03.12.2022. Learned counsel further submits that other co-accused person namely Bharat Lal Meena has been granted benefit of bail by the learned trial Court. Charge-sheet has already been filed in the matter. The petitioner No.1-Priyanshu Meena is in custody since 13.02.2023 and the petitioner No.2- Santosh Kumar @ Baccha Nangal is in custody since 13.06.2023 and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for petitioners. She submits that on the fateful day, the petitioners committed two crimes. After committing murder of one Mahendra Meena, they snatched away car of the complainant. 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, especially the fact that neither identification parade has conducted nor subject car has recovered from the possession of the petitioner; other co-accused person has also been granted benefit of bail by the learned trial Court; filing of charge-sheet as well as looking to the custody period of the petitioners, but without commenting anything on the [2025:RJ-JP:2185] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-11599/2024] 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) Priyanshu Meena Son Of Shri Bhagwan Sahay Meena and (2) Santosh Kumar @ Baccha Nangal Son Of Shri Prithviraj Meena, shall be released on bail provided each of them furnish 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. However, it is made clear that the petitioners shall not involve in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court. The petitioners are further directed to mark their presence in the concerned police station in first week of every month, till trial is concluded. 8. If breach of any 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 petitioners by this Court. 9. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and will not effect trial in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MR/96