[2025:RJ-JP:10279] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3211/2025 Talim S/o Dhyani, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Gadhaner, Police Station Pahadi, District Deeg. (Currently In Sub Jail, Deeg, Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 05/03/2025 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.284/2017 registered at Police Station Pahadi, District Bharatpur for the offences under Sections 4/21 of MMDR Act and Section 379 of IPC. Later on, police filed charge- sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 307 & 353 of IPC and Section 4/21 of MMDR Act and Section 54/60 of MMCR Act. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that as per contents of FIR, there were about 40-50 persons involved in the offence. It is submitted that injury sustained by the complainant party are simple in nature and police has submitted charge-sheet after completion of investigation. Learned counsel contends that other co-accused namely Arif and Dhyanee have been granted benefit of bail by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court. It is contended that petitioner is in [2025:RJ-JP:10279] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-3211/2025] custody since his date of arrest. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. Charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time in its conclusion. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor oppose the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 petitioner, as also the fact that no specific overt act has been assigned to the petitioner in the FIR; co-accused persons have been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court; charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time in its conclusion, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Talim S/o Dhyani, 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /229