Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 36002 (RAJ)

KAMLESH GEHLOT v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/830/2025 · 2025-01-24

Farjand Ali

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JD:4795] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 830/2025 Kamlesh Gehlot S/o Shri Daulat Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Shri Majisa Flour Mill, Kheme Ka Kuan, Ps Shastri Nagar , Jodhpur West (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Jodhpur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Mr. Bhupesh Vyas For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order 24/01/2025 1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 279/2024 2. Concerned Police Station Shastrinagar 3. District Jodhpur City West 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 108 of BNS 5. Offences added, if any - 6. Date of passing of impugned order 09.01.2025 2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no case for the alleged offences is made out against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the co-accused Swarupa Ram (Bail Application No.305/2025) has already been enlarged on [2025:RJ-JD:4795] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-830/2025] bail by this Court vide order dated 08.01.2025. He further submits that case of the petitioner is not distinguishable with that of the case of the co-accused Swarupa Ram who has already been enlarged on bail. 3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail. 4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. Co- accused Swarupa Ram has already been enlarged on bail vide order dated 08.01.2025 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No.305/2025. Thus, on the ground of parity and considering the fact that there is high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter. 5. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so. (FARJAND ALI),J 72-Chhavi/-