[2026:RJ-JP:1976] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16265/2025 Satish Kumar S/o Behram, aged about 50 Years, R/o Bhokar, Police Station Khush Kheda, District Khairthal- Tijara (Rajasthan). (At Presently Confined in District Jail Alwar (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Palak for Mr. Sunil Singodiya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 16/01/2026 1. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.30/2025 registered at Police Station Khushkheda, District Bhiwadi for offences punishable under Sections 115(2) & 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 118(1) & 109(1) of BNS, 2023. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that alleged incident took place in the spur of moment. Counsel submits that injured of this case is wife of the petitioner and on account of heated arguments between them, [2026:RJ-JP:1976] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16265/2025] said incident was occurred. Counsel submits that it is a case of sole injury. Counsel submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. He argues that the petitioner is in custody since 16.04.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. He submits that though, it is case of sole injury but said injury has been opined as dangerous to life. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially, said injury was opined as grievous in nature but on the same day, on the request of Investigating Officer, same has been opined as dangerous to life. 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 petitioner, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, as also the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 7. The bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Satish Kumar S/o Behram shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) together with two [2026:RJ-JP:1976] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16265/2025] 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 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. 8. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court. The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station in first week of every month, till trial is concluded. 9. Concerned SHO shall enter the attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his 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. 10. If breach of any 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 petitioner 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 LALIT MOHAN /148