[2025:RJ-JP:36022] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1897/2025 Virendra Chaudhary @ Billu S/o Shri Lachuram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Chainpura Bada, P.S. Sidhmukh, District Churu At Present Makan Number A-33, Hastinapur Colony, Maharana Pratap Marg, Panchayawala, P.S. Karni Vihar, Jaipur. (At Present Accused Confined In Central Jail Jaipur.) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst. G.A. Mr. Sarfaraz Hyder Khan, for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 08/09/2025 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.132/2021 registered at Police Station Banipark, District Jaipur (West) for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 302 and 34 of IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge- sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of IPC and Section 3/25(6) of Arms Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has nothing to do with the [2025:RJ-JP:36022] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-1897/2025] alleged incident. He is not named in the FIR. He has been implicated in this case only on surmises and conjectures. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence which is very teditious task and it can be done when the entire material is brought on record. It is also argued that bail application of the co-accused Ashish Shekhawat has also been accepted by Co- ordinate Bench. The petitioner is in custody since 14.10.2021 and thus, he has been behind the bars for nearly three years and ten months whereas trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as out of 60 witnesses, only 46 could have been examined in the trial and due to filing of supplementary charge sheet, 20 more witnesses have been added. The petitioner is nowhere responsible for the delay occurring in the smooth process of trial. With these submissions, he craves acceptance of instant bail application. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant oppose the instant bail application. It is contended that the accused petitioner actively participated in commission of the crime, which is evident from the role played by him in the commission of offence. During investigation, it has come out that he purchased GPS device and on his instructions, it was later installed in the vehicle of the deceased by other co- accused to monitor the movements of the deceased. Learned Public Prosecutor argues that the petitioner has ten criminal antecedents. However, in nine cases, he has been acquitted. 4. Heard. Perused the material available on record. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for [2025:RJ-JP:36022] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-1897/2025] the parties, as also looking to the fact that there is a snail’s pace progress at trial and the delay occurring in trial is not attributed to the petitioner; he is behind the bars since 14.10.2021 and thus remained behind the bars for nearly three years and ten months, co-accused Ashish Shekhawat has been granted bail by Co- ordinate Bench, but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of this case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Virendra Chaudhary @ Billu S/o Shri Lachuram, 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 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. 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 first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 8. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:36022] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-1897/2025] immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 9. If any breach 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. 10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. 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 CHARU SONI /29