[2025:RJ-JP:51121] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 14570/2025 Parvej @ Parvej Alam @ Pandit S/o Aslam, R/o Allapur Bheekam, Police Station Mainather, District Muradabad (U.P.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Sewar, Bharatpur). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP and Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt.G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 18/12/2025 1. This third bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.807/2016 registered at Police Station Nadbai, District Bharatpur for offence punishable under Section 382 of IPC. During the course of investigation, offences punishable under Sections 395, 365 and 120B of IPC have been found proved against the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the second bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2025 while giving liberty to file fresh bail application before the learned trial Court. Counsel further submits that in view of the directions issued by this Court, fresh bail application has been filed on behalf of the [2025:RJ-JP:51121] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-14570/2025] petitioner before the learned trial Court, the same was dismissed. Hence, this third bail application has been preferred. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that other co-accused persons namely, Munim @ Montu, Chhote @ Chhotu @ Jagdish @ Lohre, Sitaram @ Lala, Mahbub @ Ayyub @ Ashiq and Pawan @ Bittu have already been granted benefit of bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Counsel argues that case of the present petitioner is also on similar footing. Counsel contends that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel further contends that petitioner is in custody since 09.07.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender as sixteen other cases have been registered against him and he is resident of Muradabad (U.P.). 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 petitioner, especially the fact that other co-accused persons have been granted benefit of bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court; case of the present petitioner is also on similar footing and trial will take considerable 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 fit and proper to allow the third bail application. [2025:RJ-JP:51121] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-14570/2025] 7. This third bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Parvej @ Parvej Alam @ Pandit S/o Aslam shall be released on bail provided, he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh and Fifty 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. Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court. The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station in first week of every month, till trial is concluded. 9. Concerned SHO shall enter the attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. 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. 10. 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 the petitioner by this Court. 11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. [2025:RJ-JP:51121] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-14570/2025] 12. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/14