[2025:RJ-JP:10515] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3310/2025 Rahul S/o Ummed, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Gajipur, Police Station Mahwa, District Dausa ( At Present Confined In District Jail Sawai Madhopur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 07/03/2025 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.108/2024 registered at Police Station Peeloda, District Gangapur City for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 126(2), 127(2) & 109(1) of BNS & Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that allegation of causing firearm injury has been levelled against co-accused-Santosh Jogi. It is submitted that other co- accused person namely Mahendra has been granted benefit of bail by this court. Trial of the case will take considerable time. Petitioner is in custody since 17.12.2024 & further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. [2025:RJ-JP:10515] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3310/2025] 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as three other cases have been registered against him. 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, especially the fact that allegation of causing firearm injury has been levelled against co-accused- Santosh Jogi & other co-accused person namely Mahendra has been granted bail by this court; 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 the bail application. 6. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner – Rahul S/o Ummed 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. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court. The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the [2025:RJ-JP:10515] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3310/2025] concerned police station in first week of every month, 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. 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 petitioner by this Court. 10. 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /34