[2025:RJ-JP:32015] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10135/2025 1. Umesh Kumar Meena S/o Kailash Chand Meena, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Manpuriya Post Salempura, Police Station Rahuwas, District Dausa. (Presently Confined In Central Jail Jaipur). 2. Naihanuram S/o Jagdish Meena, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Indrapuri, Police Station Kotkhawda, District Jaipur Recently Tenant Of House Of Vikas Prajapat, Near Bais Meel, Village Deedwana, Police Station Ramgarh Pachwara District Dausa. (Presently Confined In Central Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10265/2025 Prakash Chand Meena S/o Kaluram Meena, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Maanpura, Salempura, P.s. Rahuwas, District Dausa (Confined In Jaipur Jail) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Kumar Sharma in Bail Application No. 10135/2025 Mr. Hemant Kankoria in Bail Application No. 10265/2025 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP with Mr. Shubham Kumar Sain, AAAG Mr. Pradeep Sharma, for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 14/08/2025 1. These bail applications were preferred under Section 483 of BNSS by the petitioners-accused Umesh Kumar Meena, [2025:RJ-JP:32015] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-10135/2025] Naihanuram and Prakash Chand Meena in FIR No.178/2025 dated 17.07.2025 registered at P.S. Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur City (East), District Jaipur City (East) whereby the petitioners-accused have charged under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 109(1) and 140(3) of BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon grounds raised in bail application submit that the petitioners are innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. They further submit that none of these petitioners were named in FIR and any of witness has not stated and identified their role and involvement. They further submits that police has collected CCTV footage but these petitioners were not identified in CCTV footage. They further submits that role and involvement of five persons were different than present petitioners. They further submits that the injured have assigned simple injuries and not a grievous injury was found on his body. They further submit that as per CCTV footage there was only one car and it is not possible to flee more than five in said car. They further submits that there is no criminal antecedents and currently investigation is in progress. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that in broad day light, 8-10 or more person have assaulted a public cafe and they kidnapped injured from cafe after beating him. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the case diary. [2025:RJ-JP:32015] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-10135/2025] 6. On basis of information to Police Control Room, Jaipur, about assault and abduction of a customer by 8-10 persons, police had reached at the spot and, thereafter, procure report of injured Sonu Sharma. Injured has stated that Prakash Meena, Janakraj Meena, Santosh Bairwa, Deshraj Gurjar, Dinesh Gurjar and 7-8 other persons entered in restaurant and with chairs they started to assault him, thereafter, they have abducted him. Police has recorded statement of witnesses and collected CCTV footage. Police has identified Umesh Kumar Meena, Naihanuram and Prakash Chand Meena. 7. There is one none case against Umesh Kumar Meena and same relates to accident but there is no criminal antecedents against Naihanuram and Prakash Chand Meena. The investigation particularly interrogation note suggest that six persons Janakraj Meena, Santosh Bairwa, Deshraj Gurjar, Dinesh and Prakash Chand Meena and one unknown person entered in cafe and thereafter they took injured Sonu Sharma him in swift car, after beating him. 8. We have considered analysis of four videos of CCTV. We have considered interrogation note of Naihanuram, who was involved in this incident. We have also considered interrogation note of Umesh Kumar Meena who later joined Deshraj when injured was in the car after his abduction. Prakash Chand Meena is named and identified in the involvement and we have considered his role who is a property dealer. [2025:RJ-JP:32015] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-10135/2025] 9. Having considered totality and facts and circumstances of the case, I am of considered view that looking to role and involvement as available on record, accused petitioners Naihanuram and Prakash Chand Meena are not entitled to be released on bail but looking to the role and involvement of petitioner accused Umesh Kumar Meena, he is entitled to be released on bail. 10. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the bail applications filed by petitioners-accused Naihanuram S/o Jagdish Meena and Prakash Chand Meena S/o Kaluram Meena are hereby dismissed but the bail application filed on behalf of petitioner-accused Umesh Kumar Meena S/o Kailash Chand Meena is hereby allowed and the petitioner-accused Umesh Kumar Meena S/o Kailash Chand Meena is ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner-accused shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner. (ii) The petitioner-accused shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the Law. (iii) The petitioner-accused shall attend the hearing of the Trial Court on the date fixed by the Trial court or as and when asked to appear before the Trial Court. (iv) In case of any violation of above conditions, the bail granted to the petitioner-accused shall be liable to be cancelled. [2025:RJ-JP:32015] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-10135/2025] 11. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court through E-mail. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MR/245-246