[2026:RJ-JP:3194] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1188/2026 Bhagwandas son of Dhansingh, aged 35 years, resident of Hedalpur, Police Station Kolari, District Dholpur, (Petitioner is confined at Central Jail, Tonk) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nasroodeen Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 23/01/2026 1. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.56/2025 registered at Police Station Deoli, District Tonk (Raj.) for offence punishable under Section 19/54 of Rajasthan Excise Act. During the course of investigation, offence under punishable Section 54A of Rajasthan Excise Act has also been added against the petitioner. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. Counsel submits that co-accused namely- Ranjeet Kumar and Harendra Prasad have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court. Petitioner is in custody since 29.12.2025 and trial of the [2026:RJ-JP:3194] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1188/2026] case will take considerable time in its conclusion. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that three other cases have been registered against 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 counsel for the petitioner, as also the fact that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate; co-accused namely- Ranjeet Kumar and Harendra Prasad have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court; trial will take considerable 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 – Bhagwandas son of Dhansingh shall be released on bail provided, he 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 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. Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, 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 [2026:RJ-JP:3194] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1188/2026] presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till conclusion of the trial. 8. Concerned SHO shall enter attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, 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. 10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /18