[2025:RJ-JP:5624] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16246/2024 Aarif S/o Sorav, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Babla, Police Station Tavdu, District Nuh Mewat, Haryana. (At Present Accused In Judicial Custody At District Jail, Deeg). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Azad Ahmed For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.P. Tiwari, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 07/02/2025 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.85/2024 registered at Police Station Januthar, District Deeg (Rajasthan) for the offences punishable under Sections 121(1), 132 & 109(1) of BNS, Section 3, 5, 25 & 25(6) of Arms Act and Sections 5, 6, 8, 9 & 10 of Rajasthan Bovine Animals (Prohibition of Slaughter & Regulation of Temporary Migration & Export) Act, 1995. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 121(1), 132, 109(1) & 111(2)(b) of BNS, Section 3, 5, 25 & 25(6) of Arms Act and Sections 5, 6, 8, 9 & 10 of Rajasthan Bovine Animals (Prohibition of Slaughter & Regulation of Temporary Migration & Export) Act, 1995. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that [2025:RJ-JP:5624] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16246/2024] according to the prosecution case, on 24.07.2024, police received an information from the informer that some person are transporting the bovine animals and on this information, Naqabandi was done by the police and vehicle in question was signalled to stop but after seeing the police, persons sitting in the vehicle opened fire on the police party and in defence fire was opened by the police party but somehow, persons in the vehicle managed to escape. Counsel submits that on 06.09.2024, petitioner has been arrested in this case without any evidence. Counsel submits that it is a case of no injury and false averments have been made by the police in the FIR. Counsel submits that there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner of similar nature. Counsel further submits that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that there is serious allegation against the petitioner that when petitioner and other co- accused persons were signalled to stop the vehicle, they opened fire on the police party. 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 learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, especially the fact that it is case of no injury; absence of criminal antecedents of the petitioner of similar nature; period of custody and trial will take considerable time in [2025:RJ-JP:5624] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16246/2024] its conclusion, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this bail application. 6. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Aarif S/o Sorav 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 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. 7. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station. 8. If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court. 9. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN), J LALIT MOHAN /143