[2025:RJ-JP:36017] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2912/2025 Farukh S/o Arjun @ Arjan, Aged About 60 Years, Resident Of Ghatmika, Police Station Pahadi, District Deeg. (Currently In Sub-Jail, Deeg, Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar with Mr. Shivam Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 08/09/2025 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.451/2020 registered at Police Station Sikri, District Bharatpur for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 5 & 8 of Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 (in short, ‘RBA Act’), Section 16/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, Sections 3/25 & 6 of Arms Act, Sections 307, 473, 332 and 34 of IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 3, 5 & 8 of RBA Act, Section 16/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 and Sections 473 & 34 of IPC. [2025:RJ-JP:36017] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-2912/2025] 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel contends that bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that 18 accused persons including petitioner have allegedly been identified with the help of dragon torch light and police jeep. It is contended that although, there is allegation in the FIR that co-accused opened fire on the police personnel but neither any empty cartridge nor any sign of firing was found at the place of incident. It is submitted that offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC has not been added in the charge-sheet. Learned counsel argues that similarly situated co-accused persons against whom, criminal antecedents were found, have already been granted benefit of bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is argued that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. It is argued that petitioner is in custody since 26.09.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer of bail made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as 32 other cases have been registered against him out of which, 12 cases are of similar nature. 4. Heard. Perused the material available on record. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet including story narrated by the Investigation Agency, so also the fact that similarly situated co- [2025:RJ-JP:36017] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-2912/2025] accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court and trial will take considerable time its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody which is about one year, but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of this case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Farukh S/o Arjun @ Arjan, 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. Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner noted above, 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 every week in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner, as directed above. In case the petitioner fails to mark his 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. [2025:RJ-JP:36017] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-2912/2025] 9. If any breach 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. 10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. 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 /37