[2025:RJ-JP:10476] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 967/2025 Amit Kumar S/o Late Purn Chand, R/o House No. 46, Maharaniji Ka Nohra, Mishr Raja Ji Ka Rasta, Police Station Kotwali, Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur, District Jaipur). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Yadav, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP with Mr. Shubham Sain, AAAG and Mr. Mohd. Umar Farooq, Adv., for complainant. 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 petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.290/2024 registered at Police Station Nahargarh, District Jaipur City (North) for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 384, 420, 509 of IPC and Section 66E of IT Act. 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. He submits that it appears from the FIR and statement of the victim that there was a consensual relationship between them. He further submits that there is an allegation against the petitioner that he made a video of the victim, but no such video has been recovered during the course of the investigation. He argues that regarding [2025:RJ-JP:10476] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-967/2025] an almost similar allegation, another FIR was lodged by the victim against another person with whom, later on she entered into a compromise, and thereafter, negative final report was submitted by the Investigating Agency. He further argues that charge-sheet has already been filed, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. He contends that the petitioner is in custody since 25.11.2024 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 learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 parties, as also looking to the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet including another FIR lodged by the same complainant against other person; absence of criminal antecedents and trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, 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 - Amit Kumar S/o Late Purn Chand 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 [2025:RJ-JP:10476] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-967/2025] 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. 7. The observation made herein above 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 MADAN/148