[2025:RJ-JP:8505] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2731/2025 Gajraj Singh @ Gajju S/o Late Shri Girwar Singh, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Ofjirali Ki Dhani Sevapura, Police Station Daulatpura, District Jaipur And Plot No. 35A, Road No. 03, Bais Godam, Sodala, Police Station Sodala, Jaipur (Raj.) ( At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, through P.P ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahesh Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. S. Dhakar, PP Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 25/02/2025 1. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.1097/2024 PS Kardhani Jaipur for offences under Sections 111(3), 103(1)/55 BNSS and Section 3/25(6) Arms Act. After completion of investigation, police has filed chargesheet in the court concerned for the aforesaid offences. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that bail applications of the co-accused Chetan Sharma, Mrinal Kapoor, Deepak, Abhishek and Ravi Vishoni have been accepted by this Court. As per prosecution case, the accused persons hatched a conspiracy for murdering one Sanjay in revenge [2025:RJ-JP:8505] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2731/2025] of murder of one Happy Choudhary but before the accused persons could execute their plan, they have been arrested and the accused persons were in contact with each other via a mobile App. It is thus submitted that no offence has been committed and conspiracy, allegedly hatched by accused persons, could not be executed. Investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed in the court concerned. He is in custody since 10.10.2024 and trial will take time in its conclusion. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. It is contended that the petitioner along with other accused persons hatched a conspiracy and intended to commit crime. He submits that looking to the nature of allegations and gravity of offences, he does not deserve indulgence of bail. 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 parties, as also perusing the charge sheet filed in the court concerned by the investigating agency after completion of investigation and looking to the fact that bail applications of co-accused Chetan Sharma, Mrinal Kapoor, Deepak, Ravi Vishnoi and Abhishek have been accepted by this Court; period of custody and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion but without commenting anything on merits and demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow these bail applications. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Gajraj Singh @ Gajju S/o Shri Girwar Singh shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal [2025:RJ-JP:8505] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2731/2025] 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 observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. 8. The petitioner shall not involve in similar offences during currency of bail and shall mark his presence in the local police station where he is presently residing in the second week of every month till conclusion of trial. Breach of any of these two conditions shall alone be a reason for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to him. 9. The concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording his presence. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence, as stated above, the concerned SHO is directed to intimate the matter to the concerned court forthwith. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /752