[2025:RJ-JP:13872] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1413/2025 Rameshwar S/o Ramkunwar, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Paloda, Police Station Mandawar, District Dausa. (At Present Confined In District Jail Dausa) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.L. Sharma For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. R.R. Goyal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 26/03/2025 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.16/2023 registered at Police Station Mandawar (Dausa), District Dausa for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 336, 451, 307, 302, 506 & 120B of IPC and Sections 3/25 & 27 of Arms Act. 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 initially, police filed charge-sheet in this matter against 13 persons including petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 336, 325, 307, 302, 506 & 120B of IPC and Sections 3/25 & 5/27 of Arms Act. Later on, police filed supplementary charge-sheet against three persons namely Akbar Khan, Hemchand @ Happy and Sunil [2025:RJ-JP:13872] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-1413/2025] Yogi and investigation was kept pending against 21 persons under Section 173(8) Cr.PC. It is submitted that other co-accused persons were denied bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court thereafter, two accused persons, namely- Akbar Khan and Sunil approached Hon’ble Apex Court and benefit of bail was granted to them considering the role attributed to them in the charge-sheet. Learned counsel contends that petitioner, who is aged about 67 years, is also on similar footing as same role has been attributed to him which has been attributed to co-accused Akbar Khan and Sunil. It is contended that according to charge-sheet, there is allegation against Akbar Khan that he fired against one Manoj however, injury certificate in respect of Manoj reveals that he only sustained an abrasion. Learned counsel argues that similar allegation has been levelled against the petitioner that he fired against Neetu Yogi, Hemraj Yogi & Sonam and it appears from their injury report that injury sustained by them has been opined as simple in nature. It is argued that according to charge-sheet, 92 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution however, till date none of the witnesses have been examined and as such there are bleak chances of culmination of trial in near future. It is argued that petitioner is in custody since 18.01.2023 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that there is serious allegation against the petitioner of causing fire arm injuries on the person of Neetu Yogi, Hemraj Yogi and Sonam [2025:RJ-JP:13872] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-1413/2025] however, fairly concedes that the said injuries have been opined as simple in nature. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as four other cases have been registered against him. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that said cases were registered long back in the years 1987, 1989, 2001 & 2009 and same have already been disposed of. 6. I have considered the contentions. 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, material made available on record in the form of charge-sheet and role attributed to the petitioner in the charge-sheet and further considering the fact that petitioner, who is aged about 67 years, is in custody since 18.01.2023; other co- accused persons namely Akbar Khan and Sunil have been granted benefit of bail by Hon’ble Apex Court so also considering the fact that till date none of the witnesses have been examined thus, possibility of further time in culmination of trial cannot be ruled out, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 8. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Rameshwar S/o Ramkunwar, 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 Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the [2025:RJ-JP:13872] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-1413/2025] 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. 9. 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 second week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. 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 CHARU SONI /116