[2025:RJ-JP:2098] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15958/2024 Sourabh @ Sukka S/o Shri Ramlakhan, Aged About 17 Years, R/o Kanketiyapur Bhankri, Police Thana, Langra, Karauli, District Karauli, (Raj.) Conflict Child Through Natural Guardian Father Ramlakhan S/o Sirmohar, Residence Of Kanketiyapur Bhankri, Police Thana, Langra, Karauli, District Karauli, At Presently Vaishali Nagar, Karauli Police Thana, Kotwali, Karuali, District (Raj.) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Krishana Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devi Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 15/01/2025 1. The instant pre-arrest bail application has been filed under Section 482 BNSS, 2023 filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is having apprehension of arrest in FIR No.175/2024 registered at Police Station Sadar Karauli, District Karauli for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2) and 109(1) of BNS, 2023. Investigation is being conducted for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 109(1), 61 of BNS, 2023 & Sections 3/25 of Arms Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that allegation of causing firearm is against Annu Meena. He further submits that other co-accused persons namely Vishnuram and [2025:RJ-JP:2098] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-15958/2024] Manoj @ Monu have been granted benefit of regular bail by this Court. He argues that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required in this matter. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. He submits that petitioner is duly named in the FIR and co-accused persons were caused firearm injury on the person of the injured. 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 the counsel for the parties as also looking to the gravity of the offence and nature of allegations, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I do not find it a fit case to allow the pre-arrest bail application. 6. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is dismissed. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/S-447