[2025:RJ-JP:7339] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1024/2025 Surgyan S/o Gokul, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Phariya, Police Station Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) 322001 (At Present In District Jail, Tonk, District Tonk). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabh Khandelwal, Adv., with Mr. Yash Sharma, Adv., and Mr. Raghav Pareek, Adv. For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP and Mr. Hari Ram Gurjar, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 19/02/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.297/2024 registered at Police Station Khandar, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 189(2), 333, 351(2) and 352 of BNS, 2023. Later on, Police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that cross-cases have been registered between the parties. He further submits that three persons from the petitioner’s side have also sustained several injuries. He argues that injury assigned to the petitioner has been found [2025:RJ-JP:7339] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1024/2025] simple in nature. He further argues that charge-sheet has already been filed and trial of the case will take considerable time. He contends that the petitioner is in custody since 26.11.2024 and 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 the counsel for the petitioner. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that four other criminal cases have been registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner that he caused injury by ‘lathi’ on the leg of the injured. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially the fact that cross-cases have been registered between the parties; injury assigned to the petitioner has been found simple in nature; charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Surgyan S/o Gokul 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 [2025:RJ-JP:7339] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1024/2025] 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. 7. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner, as directed above. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 9. If breach of any of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/38