[2026:RJ-JP:3780] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11014/2025 Surendra S/o Krishan Murari, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Bankya, Police Station Sultanpur, Kota (Raj.). (At Present Confined In District Jail Baran). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15604/2025 Mahaveer S/o Bajranglal, R/o Gudravani, Police Station Mangrol, District Baran (Raj.) (Accused Is Presently Confined In District Jail- Baran). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jagdish Nagar, Adv., and Mr. Manoj Kumar Avasthi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt.G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 23/01/2026 1. These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.124/2025 registered at Police Station Mangrol, District Baran for offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. After completion of investigation, [2026:RJ-JP:3780] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-11014/2025] police filed charge sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submit that there is no evidence available on record to connect the petitioners with the alleged crime. Counsel further submit that eye-witnesses of the case namley Chhotulal (PW-5) and Omprakash (PW-4) have not supported the prosecution story and they have been declared hostile by the Trial Court. They further argued that charge-sheet has already been filed and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. They contend that the petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the prayer of bail. It is submitted that looking to gravity of offence and evidence so far come on record, the petitioners do not deserve indulgence of bail. He, thus, crave dismissal of these bail applications. 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 petitioners, especially the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet; and eye-witnesses of the case have been declared hostile; and trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without [2026:RJ-JP:3780] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-11014/2025] commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow these bail applications. 6. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners- (1). Surendra S/o Krishan Murari, and (2). Mahaveer S/o Bajranglal 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. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of these bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MANOJ SOLANKI/18-19