[2025:RJ-JP:2978] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12978/2024 Bablu @ Rajesh S/o Suraj, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Rajpura, Police Station Lambaharisingh, District Tonk (Raj.) (At Present At Confined In Central Jail, Tonk) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shantanu Bansal For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 21/01/2025 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.172/2023 registered at Police Station Diggi, District Tonk (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 302 of IPC. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 396 & 460 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that FIR was lodged against the unknown persons and entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. Counsel submits that it is evident from the charge-sheet that two persons namely Balu @ Ramavtar and Jodharam @ Mukesh @ Jodhya were arrested by the police on the basis of internal information received from the [2025:RJ-JP:2978] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-12978/2024] informer. Counsel submits that arrest of the petitioner made solely on the basis of interrogation of aforesaid two accused persons on dated 16.01.2024. Counsel submits that vague allegation has been levelled in the charge-sheet that motorcycle recovered from the petitioner was purchased by the means of looted articles. Petitioner is in custody since his date of arrest and trial will take considerable time. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that role of the petitioner is appearing on the interrogation of the co-accused persons. 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 petitioner, especially the fact that entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence; period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Bablu @ Rajesh S/o Suraj 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:2978] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-12978/2024] 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. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner. In case the petitioner fails to mark his 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 him by this Court. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN), J LALIT MOHAN /158