[2025:RJ-JP:15550] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3263/2025 Iddi @ Iddar @ Idrish S/o Changa, R/o Fatehpur, 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) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 07/04/2025 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.31/2015 registered at Police Station Nagar, District Bharatpur for the offences punishable under Sections 332 & 353 of IPC, Section 8 of Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration Or Export) Act 1995, Sections 3/25 & 7 of Arms Act and Section 16/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. Investigation is being conducted for offences punishable under Sections 332, 353, 307, 401 & 120B of IPC, Sections 3 & 5/8 of Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration Or Export) Act, 1995, Section 3/25 of Arms Act and Section 16/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. [2025:RJ-JP:15550] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3263/2025] Counsel submits that petitioner has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of interrogation of co-accused persons. It is further submitted that other co-accused persons have been granted benefit of bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Learned counsel contends that petitioner is in custody since 04.03.2024 as on an earlier occasion one case was registered against him and in the present case, he has formally been arrested on 03.02.2025. It is submitted that benefit of bail has already been granted to the petitioner in other case and further custody of the petitioner in the present case would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as 14 other cases including offences punishable under Sections 302 & 307 of IPC 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 petitioner, as also considering the fact that 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. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Iddi @ Iddar @ Idrish S/o Changa, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in [2025:RJ-JP:15550] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3263/2025] 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. 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 in first and third week of every month 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. 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /216