[2026:RJ-JP:27354] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 8290/2026 URN: CRLMB / 15106U / 2026 Sarjeet S/o Leeluram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Plot No. 17, Near Vigyan Bal Mandir School, Rico Residential Colony, Indus- trial Area, Police Station Beechhwal, District Bikaner, Rajasthan. (Presently Accused Petitioner Is In High Security Jail, Ajmer). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 8522/2026 URN: CRLMB / 15492U / 2026 Umesh S/o Murlidhar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Kismideshar, Police Station Gangashahar, District Bikaner, (Ra- jasthan) (At Present Confined In District Jail Sikar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaideep Singh Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sogarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, P.P. Mr. Jaswant Singh for Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 17/07/2026 1. These instant second bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.816/2022 registered at Police Station Udyog Nagar (Sikar), District Sikar for the offence punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 396, 120B of BNS and under Section 3/25, 7/27 of Arms Act. [2026:RJ-JP:27354] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-8290/2026] 2. It is contended by learned counsels for the petitioners that that the they have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsels submits that admittedly petitioners were not captured in the CCTV footage as they were not present at the place of incident. Counsels submits that they have been implicated with the aid of Section 120-B of IPC. Counsel further submits that similar situated co-accused namely- Sarjeet Singh S/o Sube Singh has been granted the benefit of bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 24.04.2026 in SLP (Crl.) No. 5580 of 2026 after considering the period of incarceration. Counsel submits that the case of the present petitioners are also on identical footing. Counsel further submits that petitioner- Umesh and Sarjeet are in custody since 14.12.2022 and 21.09.2023, respectively. He further submits that petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents in the past and trial of the case will take considerable time and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose, therefore, the present bail applications may be allowed. 3. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that serious allegations are levelled against the petitioners and in the alleged incident two persons have lost their lives. 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 both the parties, that the co-accused- Sarjeet Singh S/o Sube Singh has been granted the benefit of bail from Hon'ble Supreme Court and [2026:RJ-JP:27354] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-8290/2026] case of the present petitioners are not distinguishable from that of the co-accused, further considering the custody period and criminal antecedents, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 6. These second bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners – 1) Sarjeet S/o Leeluram, & 2) Umesh S/o Murlidhar, shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty 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. 7. It is made clear that the accused-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail. 9. If breach of the condition 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 them by this Court. 10. Office is directed to send copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. The observations 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 246-247/AMAN