[2026:RJ-JP:4010] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14166/2025 Chand @ Chandram S/o Prithvisingh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Mundanwas, Police Station Kasola, District Rewari, Haryana. (At Present Confined In District Jail Gurugram). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14666/2025 Sube Singh S/o Shri Puran Singh, R/o Bar Gurjar, Police Station Khedki Daula, District Gurugram (Haryana) At Present Lodged In The Central Jail, Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Yadav Mr. Ashvin Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 29/01/2026 1. These bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS have been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.150/2020 registered at Police Station Kotkasim, District Bhiwadi (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307 & 450 of IPC & Sections 3/25 & 5/27 of Arms Act, 1959 (Amendment 2019). After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. [2026:RJ-JP:4010] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-14166/2025] 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submit that neither petitioners are named in the FIR nor in the statement of witnesses. They submit that it is mentioned in the FIR that injured witness namely Ramniwas can identify the assailants but during the course of trial, he failed to identify the accused persons. Counsel submit that as per the averments made in the charge-sheet, petitioners were not present at the place of the incident. It is submitted that similar situated co-accused person namely Yashpal @ Sarpanch has been granted benefit of regular bail by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner- Chand @ Chandram submits that on the basis of secret information received from the informant, arrest of the petitioner was made on 30.07.2020 and since then he is in judicial custody. Arguing the case of petitioner-Sube Singh, counsel submits that arrest of the petitioner has been made solely on the basis of police interrogation of co-accused person namely Chand @ Chandram but same cannot be used against the petitioner as same is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. He further submits that except police interrogation of the co-accused-Chand @ Chandram, no other evidence is available on record. Petitioner is in custody since 25.02.2023 and as such he has suffered incarceration of almost three years. Learned counsel for the petitioners jointly submits that petitioners are ready to abide all the conditions which may be imposed upon them by this Court. Trial of the case will take considerable time as till date only 20 prosecution witnesses have been examined out of 30 cited prosecution witnesses. [2026:RJ-JP:4010] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-14166/2025] Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that petitioners are habitual offenders as 31 other cases have been registered against the petitioner-Sube Singh and 18 other cases have been registered against the petitioner-Chand @ Chandram, therefore, looking to the criminal antecedents of the petitioners, bail should not be granted to them. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that mere registration of other cases cannot be a sole ground to refuse the bail application of the petitioners and the Court is required to consider the specific role attributed to the accused petitioners. Counsel for the petitioner-Chand @ Chandram submits that in four cases petitioner has been acquitted by the learned trial Court. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. 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 and the fact that petitioners were not present at the place of incident and sole injured witness namely Ramniwas has not identified the assailants during the course of trial, so also considering the fact that co-accused person namely Yashpal @ Sarpanch has been granted benefit of regular bail by this Court relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balwinder Singh Versus State of Punjab & Anr. arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) [2026:RJ-JP:4010] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-14166/2025] No(s).8523/2024 and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion as till date only 20 witnesses have been examined out of cited 30 prosecution witnesses 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 applications. 7. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners – 1) Chand @ Chandram S/o Prithvisingh & 2) Sube Singh S/o Shri Puran Singh 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. 8. Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioners, it is made clear that the accused-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence in first and third weeks of every month in the concerned police station. 9. Concerned SHO shall enter the attendance of the petitioners in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioners fail to mark their presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. [2026:RJ-JP:4010] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-14166/2025] 10. 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 them by this Court. 11. Office is directed to send copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 12. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /11-12