Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 3881 (RAJ)

DEEPAK MEENA S/O DHARM CHAND MEENA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/825/2025 · 2025-03-04

Anil Kumar Upman

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:9430] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 825/2025 Deepak Meena S/o Dharm Chand Meena, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Killa Mohalla Tan Ramgarh, Police Station Ramgarh, Dist. Alwar ( At Present In Central Jail In Judicial Custody Since 19- 07-2024) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Surana, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Sankalp Sogani Ms. Muskan Verma Mr. Umang Jain Mr. Anuj Rohila For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP Mr. Shimbhu Dayal, S.I., PS Behror, District Kotputli-Behror Mr. Girish Khandelwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 04/03/2025 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.176/2024 registered at Police Station Narayanpur, District Kotputli-Behror (Rajasthan) for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 190, 115(2), 126(2), 109(1), 103(2) & 191(3) of BNS. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 190, 115(2), 126(2), 109(1), 103(2), 191(3), 309(4) & 61(2)(a) of BNS. [2025:RJ-JP:9430] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-825/2025] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that before making the arrest of the petitioner, no evidence was available with the Investigating Officer. Counsel submits that petitioner has been made accused simply on the basis of interrogation of co-accused who was captured in CCTV footage. Counsel submits that except one stick which is not blood stained, no recovery has been found from the possession of the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 19.07.2024 and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. However, learned Public Prosecutor fairly conceded the fact that name of the petitioner was surfaced first time when co-accused of this case was interrogated. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that bail application of the co-accused Ashok Kumar has been declined by this Court and case of the present petitioner is also on the same footing. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially the fact that at the time of arrest of the petitioner, except interrogation, no material was available with the investigating agency against the petitioner and so far as the bail application of the co-accused Ashok Kumar is [2025:RJ-JP:9430] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-825/2025] concerned, same was declined by this Court for the reason that when notice was given to co-accused under Section 133 of MV Act, he clearly stated in writing that vehicle was given by him to the co-accused persons for committing offence; charge-sheet has been filed in this matter; period of custody & trial will take considerable time in its conclusion, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this bail application. 7. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Deepak Meena S/o Dharm Chand Meena 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. 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 LALIT MOHAN /274