[2025:RJ-JP:10468] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 834/2025 1. Pappu S/o Surgyan, Aged About 33 Years, 2. Laiekesh S/o Surgyan, Aged About 31 Years, Both R/o Leeloti, Police Station Sadar Hindaun, District Karauli (Rajasthan) (Presently Confined In Sub Jail Hindaun City, District Karauli). ----Accused-Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Shubham Sain, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 06/03/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.501/2021 registered at Police Station Sadar Hindaun, District Karauli for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 323 and 379 of IPC. Later on, Police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 302, 147, 148, 149 and 325 of IPC. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that there is no allegation against the petitioners to cause injury on the person of the deceased or injured. He further submits that according to the prosecution case, [2025:RJ-JP:10468] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-834/2025] allegation of causing head injury was levelled against the co- accused Sitaram and he has been granted bail by this Court. According to the opinion of the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem, cause of death is shock brought about as a result of cumulative effect of ante-mortem blunt chest injury, its complication, chronic lungs disease and multiple bodily injuries were the reason of death. He argues that other co-accused persons namely- Balram, Ramveer and Ravikesh have been granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and chest injury has been attributed to the co-accused Ramveer. He further submits that charge-sheet has already been filed, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. He contends that the petitioners are in custody since 09.12.2024 and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. He submits that the petitioners are duly named in the FIR. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case; contentions advanced by counsel for the petitioners as also looking to the fact that role attributed to the petitioners and also considering the fact that co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court as well as co-ordinate Bench of this Court; absence of criminal antecedents and custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. [2025:RJ-JP:10468] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-834/2025] 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners- 1. Pappu S/o Surgyan and 2. Laiekesh S/o Surgyan shall be released on bail provided each of them 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 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/129