[2025:RJ-JP:11316] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2971/2025 1. Pappu S/o Jhaau, Aged About 67 Years, 2. Mubarik S/o Deenu, Aged About 46 Years, 3. Atta S/o Pappu, Aged About 35 Years, All are R/o Jhiwana Thana Chaupanki, District Khairthal, Tizara. ----Accused-Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shiv Charan Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP with Mr. Shubham Sain, AAAG and Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv., for complainant. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 11/03/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks withdrawal of this bail application qua accused-petitioner No.1 i.e. Pappu S/o Jhaau with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after submission of result of investigation. 2. Permission sought for is granted. 3. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed as withdrawn qua accused-petitioner No.1 i.e. Pappu S/o Jhaau with liberty as prayed for. 4. So far as accused-petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, they have preferred the instant bail application under Section 483 of BNSS as they have been arrested in connection with FIR [2025:RJ-JP:11316] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2971/2025] No.303/2024 registered at Police Station Chaupanki, District Bhiwadi (Rajasthan) for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 189(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short ‘BNS’), 2023. Investigation is being conducted in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2) and 109(1) of BNS, 2023. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that omnibus allegations have been levelled against the petitioners and there is no allegation against them of causing injury on the person of the injured namely- Farooq. It is submitted that allegation of causing life threatening injury is against co-accused namely- Pappu. He contends that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. He argues that petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. It is submitted that petitioners are duly named in the FIR. 7. I have considered the contentions. 8. 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 the fact that life threatening injuries have not been attributed to the petitioners; absence of criminal antecedents of the petitioners and trial will take time in its [2025:RJ-JP:11316] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2971/2025] conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this bail application. 9. The bail application is accordingly partly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners- Mubarik S/o Deenu and Atta S/o Pappu 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/S-490