MANISH URF MANNU URF NITIN S/O SHRI UKESH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CRLMB/2016/2025 · 2025-03-11
Anil Kumar Upman
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 6418 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 6418 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:11339] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 994/2025 Ravi S/o Krishna Kumar Soni, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Chandwali Mohalla, Tan Shimla, Police Station Mehada, District Neem Ka Thana (Raj.) (At Present Accused Confined In Jaipur Central Jail). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2016/2025 Manish Urf Mannu Urf Nitin S/o Shri Ukesh, R/o Behind The Temple Of Baba Shyodas, Police Station Foolbag Distt. Khairthal- Tijara Rajasthan. (At Present Confined At Central Jail Jaipur Distt. Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Agarwal Mr. Hanish Khan Mr. Omveer Singh For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order 11/03/2025
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.437/2024 registered at Police Station Chandwaji, District Jaipur Rural for the offence under Section 309(4) of BNS. Investigation is being conducted for offences
[2025:RJ-JP:11339] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-994/2025] punishable under Sections 309(6) & 61(2)(a) of BNS and Section 3/25 of Arms Act.
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 alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. It is submitted that petitioners are in custody since
17.12.2024. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. Trial will take time in its conclusion.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. She submits that petitioner Ravi is habitual offender as 11 other cases have been registered against him and two other cases have been registered against petitioner Manish.
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, as also considering the fact that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate; petitioners are in custody since 17.12.2024; trial will take time in its conclusion, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow these bail applications.
6. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is
directed that accused-petitioners (1) Ravi S/o Krishna Kumar Soni, & (2) Manish Urf Mannu Urf Nitin S/o Shri Ukesh, shall be released on bail provided 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
[2025:RJ-JP:11339] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-994/2025] 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 and they shall mark their 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 petitioners, as directed above. In case the petitioners fail to mark their 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.
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 them by this Court.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /402-403