[2025:RJ-JP:12070] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2378/2025 Mahaveer Gurjar S/o Shri Ramkishan Gurjar, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Anandpura, P.S. Chaksu District Jaipur Present Block B-3, Flat No. 13, 7th Floor, Sector-26, Dwarkapuri, P.S. Pratap Nagar, Jaipur. (Accused In Present Confined In Jail Jaipur). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2379/2025 Naeem Qureshi S/o Mohammed Salim, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Plot Number 520, Rajeev Nagar Kacchi Basti Police Station Bhatta Basti District Jaipur At Present Kaarkhana N.R. Motors Malhotra Nagar, Vishvkarma Police Station Vishvkarma Jaipur West (At Present In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhanu Prakash Sharma, Adv., and Mr. Javed Mohd. Khan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 18/03/2025 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.34/2025, registered at Police Station Vishwakarma, District Jaipur (West) for the offences punishable [2025:RJ-JP:12070] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2378/2025] under Sections 303(2), 317(2) and 347(1) of BNS, 2023. Investigation is being conducted in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 303(2), 317(2), 347(1) and 111 of BNS, 2023. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submit that they have been arrested in this case solely on the basis of fact that a stolen vehicle was found in the garage of the petitioner-Naeem Qureshi and petitioner-Mahaveer Gurjar is a mechanic in the said garage. They argue that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. They contend that the petitioners are in custody since 27.01.2025 and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 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 looking to the fact that absence of criminal antecedents and trial will take time in its conclusion 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 these bail applications. 6. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners – 1. Mahaveer Gurjar S/o Shri Ramkishan Gurjar and 2. Naeem Qureshi S/o Mohammed [2025:RJ-JP:12070] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2378/2025] Salim 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 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 once in every three months 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 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 them by this Court. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/85-86