[2025:RJ-JP:12886] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13923/2024 Mahaveer S/o Pokhar Mal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Kalyanpura Kala, Police Station Sarund, District Kotputli-Behror. (At Present In Sub Jail Kotputli, District Kotputli-Behror). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Siyaram Sharma, Mr. Vinod Kumar Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Poonia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 20/03/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.248/2024 registered at Police Station Sarund, District Kotputli-Behror for the offence(s) under Sections 310(2), 311, 308(5), 109(1) and 61(2)(a) of BNS and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR. The police also concluded that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence, when the robbery was committed by the other co-accused. The petitioner has been involved solely on the ground that prior to the incident the petitioner threatened the employee of Shree Shyam Bohra Crasher [2025:RJ-JP:12886] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-13923/2024] Machinery. The statement of Vijay Singh was not recorded in this case. It is also alleged against the petitioner that the vehicle which was used in the commission of offence was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The said vehicle was recovered on 03.10.2024 whereas, the offence was committed on 02.10.2024. The offence was committed by the other co-accused namely- Rohitash Gurjar and Ram Singh Gurjar. The mere presence of the petitioner nearby to the place where the vehicle was found cannot be a ground to presume that the petitioner was involved in commission of the offence. The petitioner is in custody since 14.10.2024 and trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and contended that the accused-petitioner is a habitual offender and prior to the present incident, another FIR bearing Nos. 232/2024 and 242/2024 were registered against the petitioner and the petitioner was arrested in the said case. In those registered cases, the petitioner threatened the employee of Shree Shyam Bohra Crasher Machinery and demanded rangdari from it's employees. The petitioner is a member of the gang and his presence was found nearby the vehicle which was used in commission of the offence. It is also contended that the pen drive which was submitted before the Investigating Officer substantiates the fact that the petitioner threatened the employee Vijay Singh. The petitioner was involved in five other cases and is a habitual [2025:RJ-JP:12886] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-13923/2024] offender, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. Admittedly, the name of the petitioner has not appeared in the FIR. It is alleged against the other co-accused that they committed robbery in Shree Shyam Bohra Crasher Machinery and fled away with the cash of Rs.25,000/-. The other co-accused who committed the offence are named in the FIR though the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR. The police also did not affirmatively conclude that the petitioner was present along with the other co-accused at the time of occurrence. The police after investigation has concluded that the petitioner was involved in other cases of threatening and demanding rangdari and prior to the present incident also the accused petitioner threatened the employee of Shree Shyam Bohra Crasher Machinery- Vijay Singh. In the witness list, the name of Vijay Singh is not mentioned and after perusing the case diary, the Learned Public Prosecutor concedes, that the statement of Vijay Singh was not recorded by the Investigating Officer. There is no analysis report of pen drive recovered from the other witness. The presence of the petitioner was found nearby the vehicle which was used in commission of offence on the next day, therefore, considering the above facts, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Mahaveer S/o Pokhar Mal, in connection with FIR No.248/2024 registered at Police Station Sarund, District Kotputli-Behror shall be enlarged [2025:RJ-JP:12886] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-13923/2024] on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 7. The accused is also directed to mark his presence on 25th of every month till conclusion of trial before the concerned police station. The SHO of the concerned police station shall send the presence report of the accused petitioner to the trial court every month. In case of any breach to the above condition, the learned Public Prosecutor shall be free to move the application against the petitioner for cancellation of the bail before the concerned Magistrate. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/72