[2025:RJ-JP:51173] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16683/2025 Devendra Kumar S/o Ramkhilari, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Gram Kharsada, Post Thana Rajaji, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar, Then Constable, 1323, Police Station Khanpur, District Jhalawar (Raj.) (Presently Confined At Central Jail Kota). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Gausinga For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 18/12/2025 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.237/2023 registered at Police Station CPS Jaipur, District ACB Kota for the offence punishable under Sections 7A and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that during the course of investigation, the petitioner was duly interrogated and the Investigating Agency had consciously decided not to arrest the petitioner. Later on, the petitioner was directed to remain present on the date of filing of the charge-sheet. Learned counsel submits that in compliance the [2025:RJ-JP:51173] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16683/2025] directions issued by the Investigating Agency, the petitioner appeared before the trial Court and moved an application for bail; however, the said application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 12.12.2025. Hence, the present bail application has been filed before this Court. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharth Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2022) 1 SCC 676 and Musheer Alam Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. SLP (Crl.) No.18081/2024. Counsel argues that trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody since his date of arrest and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly the fact that the police has submitted the charge-sheet after completion of the investigation, but without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, this Court deems it proper to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner–Devendra Kumar S/o Ramkhilari shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) [2025:RJ-JP:51173] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16683/2025] 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 observations made hereinabove are 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 Arun/24