[2025:RJ-JP:10373] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3296/2025 Roop Singh S/o Sukhchandi, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Jatav Mohalla, Ward No. 13, Nagar, P.s. Nagar, District Deeg (Raj.) ( Presently In District Jail Alwar District Alwar) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 3314/2025 Mundra W/o Shri Roop Singh, Aged About 54 Years, Ro Jatav Mohalla, Ward No 13, Town Nagar, P.s. Nagar District Deeg (Raj.) (Presently In District Jail Alwar Dist. Alwar) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anupam Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 07/03/2025 1. These instant bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.429/2024 registered at Police Station Kishangarh-Bas, District Khairthal-Tijara (Rajasthan) for the offences punishable under Sections 85, 80(2), 74, 316(2), 115(2) & 126(2) of BNS and Sections 66D & 67 of IT Act. [2025:RJ-JP:10373] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3296/2025] 2. First bail application of the petitioner Mundra was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording testimony of complainant and mother of the deceased. Now, complainant and other material witnesses have been examined during the course of trial. Thus, this S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 3314/2025 has been preferred on behalf of petitioner Mundra. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that petitioners are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased. Counsel submits that mother of the deceased cannot hear and see properly, that is why her statement was not recorded by the police during investigation. Counsel submits that now all material witnesses including sister and brother of the deceased have been examined during the course of trial and they did not supported the prosecution case and declared hostile by the prosecution. Counsel submits that there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioners. Counsel further submits that petitioners are in custody since 16.11.2024 and trial will take considerable time. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. However, he failed to controvert the fact that material witnesses of this case have been declared hostile by the prosecution. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:10373] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3296/2025] for the petitioner and especially the fact material witnesses of this case have been declared hostile during the course of trial by the prosecution; absence of criminal antecedents of the petitioners; 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 these bail applications. 7. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners (1) Roop Singh S/o Sukhchandi & (2) Mundra W/o Shri Roop Singh 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. 8. Any observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /31-32