SUNIL KUMAR S/O GOVIND SAHAY v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CRLMB/2053/2025 · 2025-02-11
Anil Kumar Upman
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 6574 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 6574 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:5954] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2053/2025 Sunil Kumar S/o Govind Sahay, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Nichla Kheda, Tan Aabhaneri, Police Station Bandikui, District Dausa. (At Present Accused- Petitioners Confined In Sub Jail Bandikui) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.P. Tiwari, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 11/02/2025
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. 53/2025 registered at Police Station Bandikui (Dausa), District Dausa (Raj.) for the offence punishable under Section 304(2) of BNS. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that alleged offence is triable by Magistrate and maximum sentence for the alleged offence is three years. There are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. It is further contended that Petitioner is aged about 18 years and he is in custody since his date of arrest. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. [2025:RJ-JP:5954] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2053/2025]
3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the 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, especially the fact that alleged offence is triable by Magistrate; maximum sentence for the alleged offence is three years; absence of criminal antecedents of the petitioner 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 -Sunil Kumar S/o Govind Sahay 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.
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 on first Monday of every month in the concerned police station. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner. In case the petitioner fails to
[2025:RJ-JP:5954] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2053/2025] mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 9. 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN), J Pcg/208