[2025:RJ-JP:4548] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14183/2024 Bhagmal @ Pappa S/o Shri Maida Khan, R/o Nichla Saat Alapur, Police Station Akbarpur, District Alwar. (At Present In Central Jail, Alwar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16439/2024 Vakeel Mohmmad S/o Gafru @ Gafrudeen, R/o Nichla Saat Alapur, Ps Akbarpur District Alwar (Raj.) (Accused Petitioner Is In Judicial Custody In Jail Alwar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh Sunda Mr. Manish Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Dharmendra Kumar for Mr. Kapil Gupta, for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 31/01/2025 1. These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.137/2024 registered at Police Station Akbarpur, District Alwar for offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2) & 126(2) of BNS. Charge-sheet has been filed for offences under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 103(1), 190 & 126(2) of BNS. [2025:RJ-JP:4548] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-14183/2024] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that FIR has been registered on the basis of ‘parcha bayan’ of the deceased. It is submitted that petitioners have not been named by deceased. Gafru, who is father of petitioner Vakeel, has been named in the FIR. Learned counsel contend that in the statements of the witnesses namely, Khurshid and Deena were recorded under Section 180 BNSS and they have clearly stated that deceased was beaten up by Gafru S/o Kamal Khan, Irfan s/o Shamshu, Aasam S/o Sarsu and Insar s/o Sarsu. It is contended that petitioners have no criminal antecedents. The petitioners Bhagmal and Vakeel Mohd are in custody since 27.07.2024 & 10.08.2024 respectively. Charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. It is submitted that witnesses have clearly stated that petitioners were also involved in commission of crime. A copy of complaint filed by the complainant before the police is placed before this Court that family members of petitioners are giving threatening to the witnesses to withdraw the case. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners that statement of the some of the witnesses have been examined by the police after two months of the alleged incident. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances [2025:RJ-JP:4548] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-14183/2024] of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners as also considering the statement of aforesaid witnesses recorded under Section 180 BNSS (161 Cr.P.C.) as well as under Section 183 BNSS; entire material available on record in the form of charge-sheet; absence of criminal antecedents, charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time in its conclusion, but without commenting anything on merits and demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow these bail applications. 7. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners (1) Bhagmal @ Pappa S/o Shri Maida Khan, (2) Vakeel Mohmmad S/o Gafru @ Gafrudeen, shall be released on bail provided each of them shall furnish 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 they 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 CHARU SONI /120-121