[2025:RJ-JP:9631] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2382/2025 Omaram S/o Padmaram, R/o Hariom Nagar, Devgarh, Police Station Balesar, District- Jodhpur (At Present Confined In District Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishwas Sharma Mr. Varun Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 04/03/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.79/2011 registered at Police Station Bajaj Nagar, District Jaipur City (East) (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B IPC. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 & 120B of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that 59 other cases were registered against the petitioner. It is submitted that in 27 cases out of the 59 cases he has been acquitted by the learned trial Court and in 13 cases negative final report as been submitted by the Investigating Agency. Counsel submits that presently, 17 cases are pending against the petitioner out of which in 10 cases [2025:RJ-JP:9631] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2382/2025] he is on bail and in 7 cases Investigating Agency has not taken his custody. Counsel submits that petitioner was in custody since 01.08.2022 and after being released on bail he surrendered before the trial Court and moved regular bail application which was denied by the learned trial court. Counsel submits that FIR in the present case was registered in the year 2011 wherein after investigation, police filed charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Section 420, 406 & 120B of IPC. It is submitted that maximum sentence for the alleged offences is seven years. Counsel submits that co-accused of this case has been acquitted as no allegation was levelled against him by the complainant during the course of trial. Counsel contends that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion 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 and submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as 59 other cases were registered against him however, fairly concedes that he has been acquitted in 27 cases and negative final report has been filed by the Investigating Agency in 13 cases. 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 as noted above, so also the fact that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and maximum sentence for the alleged offences is seven years; charge-sheet has been filed in this matter and trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the [2025:RJ-JP:9631] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2382/2025] merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this bail application. 6. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Omaram S/o Padmaram 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. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner. In case the petitioner fails to 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 LALIT MOHAN /144