Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 34565 (RAJ)

JUNJARAM ALIAS JUGNU S/O REKHARAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/15720/2024 · 2025-01-03

Anoop Kumar Dhand

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:375] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15720/2024 Junjaram Alias Jugnu S/o Rekharam, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Sihago Ki Dhani, Tan Shobhala Jaitmaal, PS Dhorimanna, District Barmer. (Accused Petitioner Is In Confinement At District Jail Barmer And In Custody Since 09.09.2024) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/01/2025 1. This bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the petitioner in connection with FIR No.622/2022, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Jhunjhunu wherein he is charged for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR under Section 379 IPC was registered wherein co-accused Mangilal was arrested at whose instance the vehicle was recovered and he has already been granted indulgence of bail by this Court vide order dated 29.11.2022. Counsel submits that when the co-accused Mangilal was arrested he gave an information under Section 27 of the Evidence Act that after committing theft of the vehicle in question the same was sold by him to the petitioner. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner has not committed any offence of theft even then charge- [2025:RJ-JP:375] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-15720/2024] sheet has been submitted against him under Section 379 of IPC. Counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since last more than four months and the alleged offence is triable by Magistrate and trial will take its own time to conclude, therefore indulgence of bail be granted to the petitioner. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 4. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the main accused Manglilal has already been granted indulgence of bail by this Court vide order dated 29.11.2022 and charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner and he is in custody for last more than four months and the alleged offence is triable by Magistrate and trial will take its own time to conclude and without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, I deem it just and appropriate to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioner under Section 483 B.N.S.S.. 5. Accordingly, this bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner Junjaram Alias Jugnu S/o Rekharam who is arrested in connection with aforementioned FIR, may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J GARIMA /6