[2025:RJ-JP:28564] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3096/2025 Anil S/o Murarilal, R/o Shankarpur, Police Station Balghat, Dis- trict Gangapur City, Tehsil And District Karauli (Raj.) (At Present Confined At Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhlesh Katara For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 29/07/2025 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.89/2024 registered at Police Station Todabhim, District Gangapur City for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149 & 302 of IPC & Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge- sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 & 120-B of IPC & Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act & Section 3/25(6) of Arms Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that though, petitioner is named in the FIR but as per statement of informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, name of petitioner has not mentioned. It is submitted that other eye- [2025:RJ-JP:28564] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-3096/2025] witnesses have also not alleged anything against the petitioner. It is evident from the charge-sheet that presence of the petitioner is not established at the place of incident and allegation of causing firearm injury on the person of the deceased is against co-accused person namely Chotu. Counsel submits that charge-sheet has been filed against the petitoner with the aid of Section 120B of IPC on the premise that co-accused namely Chotu committed murder by using pistol which was provided to him by the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since 10.10.2024 & trial of the case will take considerable time. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that petitioner is a hardcore criminal as 17 other cases have been registered against him. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pendency of other cases cannot be a sole ground to refuse benefit of bail to the petitioner and role attributed to the petitioner has to be looked into. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. 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 considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet and the fact that allegation of causing firearm injury on the person of the deceased is against co-accused-Chotu; trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting [2025:RJ-JP:28564] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-3096/2025] anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 7. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner – Anil S/o Murarilal 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. 8. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court and considering the criminal antecedents, he is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station in every week, till trial is concluded. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Office is directed to send copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. [2025:RJ-JP:28564] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-3096/2025] 12. 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 /52