Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5917 (RAJ)

BANTI S/O RAJDHAR SINGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/1744/2025 · 2025-02-04

Anil Kumar Upman

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:4832] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1744/2025 Banti S/o Rajdhar Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Bairabagh Dhanora Road, Badi, Police Station Kotwali Badi, District Dholpur, Raj. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Sewar Bharatpur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal, Adv. with Mr. Aaditya Joshi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 04/02/2025 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.14/2025 registered at Police Station Rupwas, District Bharatpur for the offences punishable under Sections 310(4), 310(5) of B.N.S. Act and Section 3/25 (6) 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 further submits that false recovery has been shown from the petitioner to implicate the petitioner in the present case. There are no criminal antecedents of the petitioner. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. Counsel argues that trial of the case will take considerable time. [2025:RJ-JP:4832] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1744/2025] 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 petitioner; 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 application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner – Banti S/o Rajdhar Singh, 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 once in three months in the concerned police station. 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 immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this [2025:RJ-JP:4832] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1744/2025] 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 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Mohita /267