[2025:RJ-JP:39969] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12401/2025 Pradeep Srivastava @ Lala @ Sonu S/o Ramswaroop, R/o Laxmi Nagar, Dabra, Police Station Dabra, District Gwalior (Madhya Pradesh) (At Present Confined In District Jail Sawai Madhopur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Virendra Godara For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 26/09/2025 1. This bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.181/2024 registered at Police Station Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of IPC. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that no criminal offence is made out. Learned counsel submits that it is a simple case of non-payment of diesel purchased by co-accused persons from the complainant. It is submitted that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Learned counsel argues that petitioner is in custody [2025:RJ-JP:39969] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-12401/2025] since 19.08.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as six other cases have been registered against him. He further submits that offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of IPC have been found proved against the petitioner. 4. Heard. Perused the material available on record. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the fact mentioned in the FIR, so 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 custody period, but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of this case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Pradeep Srivastava @ Lala @ Sonu S/o Ramswaroop, 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 which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. [2025:RJ-JP:39969] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-12401/2025] 7. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner, as directed above. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, 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 him 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 bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /261