[2026:RJ-JP:1639] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16713/2025 Gaurav Meena S/o Kailash Chand, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Sunari Khetri Babai, Neemkathana, Police Station Babai, District Neemkathana (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In District Jail Jhunjhunu). ----Accused/Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhanu Prakash Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 15/01/2026 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.29/2023 registered at Police Station Gothda, District Jhunjhunu for offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 413 and 414 of IPC. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that there is not an iota of evidence available on record against the petitioner. He further submits that it is a case of theft of motorcycle, which was recovered on the basis of information furnished by the co-accused in FIR [2026:RJ-JP:1639] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16713/2025] No.45/2024. Thereafter, said motorcycle was recovered in this case under Section 102 Cr.P.C. He argues that thus, it is apparent that no evidence is available against the petitioner. He further argues that trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. He contends that the petitioner is in custody since 27.05.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender as 16 other cases have been registered against him. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that careful perusal of the list mentioned in the impugned order would reveal that three cases have been repeated in order to increase the numbers of pending cases against the petitioner. 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; as also the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 27.05.2024 and trial will take time in its conclusion, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 7. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner– Gaurav Meena S/o Kailash Chand 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 [2026:RJ-JP:1639] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16713/2025] 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 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. 8. 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 trial is concluded. 9. Concerned SHO shall record the presence of the petitioner in 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 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. 11. Office is directed to send a 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 MADAN/128