[2025:RJ-JP:1565] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15810/2024 Ramgopal @ Leelu S/o Late Shri Tulsiram, R/o Sedhu Ka Nangla, Police Station Kathumar, District Alwar (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In District Jail Alwar, District Alwar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Saini For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 10/01/2025 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.367/2024 registered at Police Station Udyog Nagar, District Alwar (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 87, 351(2) & 308(2) of BNS. Later on, police filed the charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 351(2) & 308(2) 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 petitioner is aged about 18 years & victim is aged about 29 years. He submits that on earlier occasion, FIR was lodged by the husband of victim against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 379 & 366 of IPC wherein after investigation negative final report was submitted by the [2025:RJ-JP:1565] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-15810/2024] police. In that FIR, statement of victim was recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of Cr.P.C., wherein she clearly stated that her husband lodged false FIR against the petitioner and she wants to live with the petitioner. Now the impugned FIR was lodged by the victim alleging therein that rape was committed with her by the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 19.08.2024. Charge-sheet has been filed & trial of the case will take considerable time. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for 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 both the parties, especially the fact that on earlier occasion, FIR was lodged with regard to the abduction of same victim wherein she clearly stated that she is wanted to live with the petitioner; charge-sheet has been filed in this matter 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. The observations made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Ramgopal @ Leelu S/o Late Shri Tulsiram, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand [2025:RJ-JP:1565] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-15810/2024] 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /234