[2025:RJ-JP:11312] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2725/2025 Keshav S/o Pappu Jogi, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Mehandipur Balaji, Police Station Todabheem, District Karauli (Rajasthan) (Presently Confined In Sub Jail Hindaun City, District Jail, Karauli). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Adv., with Ms. Chanchal Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP with Mr. Shubham Sain, AAAG and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Goyal, Adv., for complainant. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 11/03/2025 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.431/2024 registered at Police Station Todabheem, District Gangapur City for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 69 and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. Later on, Police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 69, 3(5) and 117(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that interim bail was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 24.02.2025 to appear in the REET [2025:RJ-JP:11312] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2725/2025] Examination- 2024. He further submits that during this period after appearing in the examination, petitioner and victim have entered into marriage on 28.02.2025. He argues that marriage has been registered in the office of Registrar of Marriages and the petitioner has surrendered on 05.03.2025. He contends that charge-sheet has already been filed and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. He argues that the petitioner is in confinement and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. Rather, it would ruin married life of the petitioner and victim. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute the fact that they have entered into marriage and he has no objection, if the bail application is accepted. 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 also looking to the fact that petitioner and victim have entered into marriage; charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, 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 - Keshav S/o Pappu Jogi shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum [2025:RJ-JP:11312] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2725/2025] 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/S-483