[2026:RJ-JP:5675] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 18/2026 Sher Singh @ Subash S/o Dataram, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Kankada, Police Station Pacheri Kalan, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. (At Present Lodge At Sub Jail Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 965/2026 Rudranarayan S/o Ramprasad, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Bhawan Gawa Khurd, Jogiya, Police Station Gaur District Basti, Uttar Pradesh Presently Residing At House No. 38, Gali No. 02, Mandwali, Police Station Madhuvihar, Delhi East. (Presently Confined In Dist. Jail Jhunjhunu). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sudhir Yadav (in Bail Application No. 18/2026) Mr. Nikhil Saini (in Bail Application No. 965/2026) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order 06/02/2026 1. These bail applications have been filed by the accused- petitioners under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No. 176/2025 registered at Police Station Pacheri Kalan, District Jhunjhunu for the offence(s) under Section(s) 318(4), 316(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) of B.N.S. 2. As both the bail applications have arisen out of the same FIR, the same are being decided by this common order. [2026:RJ-JP:5675] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-18/2026] 3. Learned counsel appearing for both the petitioners submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the case as they have nothing to do with the alleged offences. Counsel further submit that there has been a delay of around two and half years in the registration of FIR. Counsel also submit that the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate; charge- sheet has already been filed in the matter and no recovery is required to be made from them. 4. Counsel further submit that Sher Singh @ Subash S/o Dataram is a 66 years old illiterate person and has no criminal antecedent whereas there are only two criminal antecedents against Rudranarayan S/o Ramprasad. Counsel also submit that the petitioners are in custody since long and the conclusion of trial will take considerable long time, so no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping them into custody, therefore, pray that the petitioners may be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application. 6. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, the fact that the alleged offences are triable by Magistrate and the charge-sheet has been filed in the matter, without commenting anything on merits / demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 7. Therefore, these bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS are allowed and accused-petitioners namely, (i) Sher Singh @ [2026:RJ-JP:5675] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-18/2026] Subash S/o Dataram and (ii) Rudranarayan S/o Ramprasad are ordered to be released on bail, provided, each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with the following conditions:- (i) The accused-petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner. (ii) The accused-petitioners shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the Law. (iii) The accused-petitioners shall attend the hearing of the Trial Court on the date fixed by the Trial Court or as and when asked to appear before the Trial Court. (iv) Violation of any of the above conditions shall be a sufficient ground for the Trial Court to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner by this Court. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J SKS/106-107