[2025:RJ-JP:3352] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1071/2025 Shivhari Son Of Sitaram Meena, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Aada Dungar, Police Station Sapotara, District Karauli ( At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1072/2025 Rahul Meena Son Of Shri Ghanshyam Meena, Resident Of Village Mangrol Bapoti, District Karuli ( Raj.) ( At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1073/2025 Vikas S/o Sh. Kanji Meena, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Dob, Police Station Sadar, Gangapur, District Sawai Madhopur ( Raj.) ( At Present Accused Petitioner Is Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Sharma Mr. Dinesh Chand Sharma Mr. Amit Ratnawat For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 23/01/2025 1. These instant bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS., on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.16/2025 registered at Police [2025:RJ-JP:3352] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1071/2025] Station Ramnagariya, District Jaipur City (East) (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2) & 309(4) of BNS. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submit that simple case of hot talks has been converted into non-bailable offence. Petitioners are in custody since 08.01.2025 & there are no criminal antecedents against them. Counsel argues that trial of the case will take considerable time. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 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 petitioners so also the fact that trial of the case will take considerable time; absence of criminal antecedents 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 applications. The observations made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. 6. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners – 1) Shivhari Son Of Sitaram Meena, 2) Rahul Meena Son Of Shri Ghanshyam Meena & 3) Vikas S/o Sh. Kanji Meena shall be released on bail provided [2025:RJ-JP:3352] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1071/2025] each of them 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 Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that they 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-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail. If this condition 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 them by this Court. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /245-247