[2026:RJ-JP:3744] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 12715/2025 Hariom S/o Shri Ramji Lal, R/o Village Bahravanda Kala Police Thana Bahravanda District Sawaimadhopur. (Presently Accused Petitioner Is Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Singhal with, Mr. Ganesh Dutt For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Amit Punia, PP Mr. Himmat Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 28/01/2026 1. This third bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 343/2024 registered at Police Station Shyam Nagar, District Jaipur City (South) (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109(1) & 3(5) of BNS, 2023 & Section 4/25 of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 28.01.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of injured as well as doctor who examined the injured. Thereafter, petitioner has preferred second bail application, however same was dismissed on merits by this Court vide order dated 13.08.2025. Now, some material witnesses have been [2026:RJ-JP:3744] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-12715/2025] examined during the course of trial thus, this third bail application has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that now, matter has been resolved by the parties amicably for which a separate compromise deed has also been executed between them. It is also submitted that other co-accused persons namely Devendra @ Doctor and Lokesh have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court. Counsel submits that trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since 26.09.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant as well as victim/injured does not dispute the factum of compromise. 6. I have considered the contentions. 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, especially considering the fact that parties have resolved their dispute amicably and 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 third bail application. 8. This third bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Hariom S/o Shri Ramji Lal shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the [2026:RJ-JP:3744] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-12715/2025] sum of Rs.1,00,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- 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. 9. Considering the criminal antecedents of the accused- 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 presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till conclusion of the trial. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 13. 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 PUNEET KUMAR /9