[2026:RJ-JP:746] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15737/2025 1. Mukeshi W/o Shaitan, Aged About 33 Years, 2. Pooja W/o Chhotu, Aged About 30 Years, 3. Shaitan S/o Kana, Aged About 35 Years, All R/o Kalyannagar, Tan Rajpura Bass, Police Station, Pachewar, Tonk (Rajasthan) ----Petitioners Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avadesh Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 09/01/2026 1. Apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No. 97/2025, registered at Police Station Pachewar, District Tonk, for the offence(s) under Sections 189(2), 115(2) and 126(2) of B.N.S., the petitioners have preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been involved in this case. The FIR itself is delayed by six days and cross case was also registered by the petitioner party against the complainant party. Dispute between the complainant party and petitioner is due to solemnization of marriage between complainant Nirma and Pradhan who is the brother of petitioner No. 3 Shaitan. The injuries sustained to the injured were found to be simple or grievous in nature and not [2026:RJ-JP:746] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-15737/2025] dangerous to life. There are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are females and petitioners are ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation, custodial interrogation of the accused-petitioners is not required, therefore, the accused-petitioners may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail application and contended that petitioners alongwith the other co-accused assaulted the complainant party prima facie offence under Section 110(1) of BNS is made out against the petitioners, therefore the anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioners deserves to be dismissed 4. Heard and perused the material available on the record. 5. Considering the fact that injuries sustained to the complainant and injured were not found to be dangerous to life and allegations against the petitioners are omnibus in nature, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are females and custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow the anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioners. 6. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioners- 1. Mukeshi W/o Shaitan, 2. Pooja W/o Chhotu, 3. Shaitan S/o Kana, in connection with FIR No.97/2025, registered at Police Station Pachewar, District Tonk, they shall be released on bail, provided each of them furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of [2026:RJ-JP:746] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-15737/2025] Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioners shall make themselvels available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and (iii) that the petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J ashu /281