[2025:RJ-JP:7175] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13589/2024 Sandeep Chaudhary S/o Hanuman Chaudhary, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Salasar Road, Shastri Nagar, Sikar At Present R/o Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined At Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Hasan, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Fahad Hasan For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Sarthak Choubey, for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 18/02/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.675/2024 registered at Police Station Mansarovar, District Jaipur City (South) for the offences under Sections 119(1), 333, 351(3) & 309(6) of BNS. Charge-sheet has been filed for offences punishable under Sections 119(1), 331(6), 351(3) & 309(6) of BNS. 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 false facts have been mentioned in the FIR. It is submitted that entire incident was captured in the CCTV footage and per the CCTV footage, no firearm is seen with [2025:RJ-JP:7175] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-13589/2024] the petitioner. It is also evident from CCTV footage that petitioner along with his wife went to the place of incident. As per the statement of Hemraj Choudhary, security guard of the Koteja Building where the incident allegedly happened that on 26.07.2024 at about 4:30 AM, one person came in white colour varna car. He pointed towards his pocket of pant and threatened him to face dire consequence, in case of refusal to follow his instructions. He apprehended that the said man was having any weapon in his pocket, accompanied him to the flat No.203 whereafter he entered in the said flat. Learned counsel contends that from this statement also, it is not reflected that the petitioner was having any pistol or weapon as this witness clearly stated that he was having only apprehension but he did not see any weapon. Learned counsel further contends that it is also evident from record that several money transactions took place between the petitioner and complainant. Petitioner is in custody since 02.10.2024. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. Learned counsel argues that facility of bail has been refused to petitioner by learned trial court only on the basis of pendency of other criminal cases. It is argued that charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time in its conclusion. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that there is allegation against the petitioner that he threatened the complainant on gun point. It is submitted [2025:RJ-JP:7175] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-13589/2024] that 16 other cases involving serious offences have been registered against the petitioner. 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 parties, as also considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet; story narrated by complainant in the FIR, Fard prepared in respect of CCTV footage 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. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Sandeep Chaudhary S/o Hanuman Chaudhary, 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. 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 every 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 [2025:RJ-JP:7175] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-13589/2024] 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /60