[2025:RJ-JP:4135] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15942/2024 Manoj S/o Sultansingh, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Jagirpura, Police Station Kaulari, District Dholpur. (At Present Confined In District Jail, Dholpur). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anil Jain, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP and Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Pandey, Adv., for complainant. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 29/01/2025 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.411/2024 registered at Police Station Kanchanpur, District Dholpur for the offences punishable under Sections 109(2), 125 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1), 25(1)(b) of Arms Act. 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 FIR was lodged against unknown person. He contends that without any initial evidence, arrest of the petitioner has been made and subsequently, false recovery of country-made pistol has been shown from the petitioner. He argues that parties have resolved their dispute amicably. He [2025:RJ-JP:4135] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-15942/2024] further argues that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial of the case will take considerable time. He contends that the petitioner is in custody since 26.11.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that on the basis of concrete information, received from the informer, arrest of the petitioner was made and country-made pistol has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant does not oppose the instant bail application. He admits the factum of compromise. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as also looking to the fact that complainant side has not opposed the instant bail application and parties have resolved their dispute; absence of criminal antecedents and trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 7. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Manoj S/o Sultansingh 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 [2025:RJ-JP:4135] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-15942/2024] 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. 8. The observation 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/S-294