[2025:RJ-JP:31724] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2098/2025 Nikesh S/o Rajkumar, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Sikroda Meena, Police Station Sadar Hindaun, District Karauli. (At Present In Sub Jail Hindaun City) ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shafiqur Rahman with Ms. Saroj Jat For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 14/08/2025 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.537/2024 registered at Police Station Sadar Hindaun, District Karauli for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2) & 103(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short, ‘BNS’), 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offence punishable under Section 105 of BNS, 2023. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that initially, FIR was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2) of BNS (Corresponding to Section 147 of IPC), 191(3) of BNS (Corresponding to Section 148 of IPC), 190 of BNS (Corresponding to Section 149 of IPC), 126(2) [2025:RJ-JP:31724] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2098/2025] BNS (Corresponding to Section 341 of IPC) & 103(1) of BNS (Corresponding to Section 302 of IPC). It is submitted that during investigation, offence punishable under section 103(1) of BNS, 2023 has not been found proved and police filed charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 105 of BNS, 2023 (Corresponding to Section 304 IPC). Learned counsel argues that now, charge has also been framed against the petitioner for the offence under Section 105 BNS, 2023. Learned counsel argues that incident occurred accidentally and there was no intention of the petitioner to cause death. It is argued that petitioner is a young boy, aged about 19 years. It is argued that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel contends that petitioner is in custody since 16.11.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by 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 considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, as also considering the fact that offence punishable under section 103(1) of BNS, 2023 has not been found proved and police filed charge- sheet for the offence punishable under Section 105 of BNS, 2023, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to [2025:RJ-JP:31724] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2098/2025] the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow this bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Nikesh S/o Rajkumar, shall be released on bail provided, he shall furnish 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. 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 /38