Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3819 (RAJ)

NOOR AALAM S/O SHRI SHAKOOR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/840/2025 · 2025-01-31

Ganesh Ram Meena

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:4451] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 840/2025 1. Noor Aalam S/o Shri Shakoor, R/o Saroli, Pyas Mohalla, Police Station Saroli, District Bareli (U.p.) Presently Resident Of Todabheem Mukhvara, Police Station Todabheem, District Gangapur City. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In District Jail Dholpur). 2. Sonu S/o Shri Rajvan, R/o Saroli, Pyas Mohalla, Police Station Saroli, District Bareli (U.p.) Presently Resident Of Todabheem Mukhvara, Police Station Todabheem, District Gangapur City. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In District Jail Dholpur). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1255/2025 1. Najir S/o Shri Jamil, R/o Todabheem Mukhvara, Police Station Todabheem, District Gangapur City. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In District Jail Dholpur). 2. Rahit Khan @ Sanjay S/o Shri Hamid, R/o Kakrala, Police Station Alapur, District Budayu, U.p. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In District Jail Dholpur). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshul Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 31/01/2025 1. These bail applications have been filed by the accused- petitioners under Section 483 of BNSS, in connection with FIR [2025:RJ-JP:4451] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-840/2025] No.411/2024, registered at Police Station Maniya, District Dholpur for the offence punishable under Section 305(a) of BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the accused- petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel further submits that co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 03.01.2025. Counsel also submits that the accused-petitioners are in custody since long time. Therefore, the accused-petitioners may be released on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail applications. 4. Considered the submissions made at Bar. 5. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly the fact that co-accused have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 03.01.2025 and the accused-petitioners are in custody since long time, this Court so as to maintain the parity but without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 6. These bail applications are, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners shall be released on bail provided each of them shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court or any other Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when [2025:RJ-JP:4451] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-840/2025] called upon to do so. 7. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in connected case file. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J DIVYA SAINI /425-426