[2026:RJ-JP:306] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12940/2025 Praveen @ Baba S/o Sumer, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Urika, P.s. Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (At Present Confined At Dist. Jail Jhunjhunu) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Upendra Singh Rathore, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Puniya, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 06/01/2026 1. This bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.144/2024 registered at Police Station Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu for offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 323, 362, 342, 302 & 201 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) & 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that no evidence is available on record to connect the present petitioner with the alleged crime. It is contended that co-accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court and co-accused who is a juvenile has been granted benefit of bail by co-ordinate bench of this Court. Counsel submits [2026:RJ-JP:306] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-12940/2025] that case of the present petitioner is identical to that of the co- accused persons. It is submitted that charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 16.05.2024 and thus, further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that specific role has been attributed to the present petitioner of causing injuries on the person of the deceased. He further submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as five other cases have been registered against him. In such circumstances, the indulgence of bail should not be granted to 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 learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, which shows the specific role of the petitioner, as also the criminal antecedents of the petitioner as well as looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed. 7. 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 Manoj Solanki /17