[2026:RJ-JP:2013] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16977/2025 Manish Gurjar S/o Suman Prakash, R/o Near Bus Stand, Sai-Pau Road, Police Station Badi, District Dholpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ketan Dhabhai Mr. Jai Kumar Jain Mr. Ananth Shankar Sharma Mr. Rahul Sharma For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Amit Punia, PP Mr. Sachin Kumar Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sogarwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 16/01/2026 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.378/2025 registered at Police Station Bari, District Dholpur (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2), 351(3), 109(1) & 61(2) of BNS, 2023. 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 the impugned FIR was lodged on the basis of a typed report submitted by the victim through his nephew, wherein no role was attributed to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has been made an accused solely on the basis of the fact that, on an earlier occasion, there was a [2026:RJ-JP:2013] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16977/2025] dispute between them due to which an FIR was registered against the petitioner, wherein he was arrested. Now, petitioner is in custody since 07.10.2025. Charge-sheet has been filed and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that name of the petitioner is appearing in the statement of victim recorded under Section 180 of BNSS. He further submits that on an earlier occasion, bail granted to the petitioner has been cancelled by the learned trial Court on the basis of the registration of the present case. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, especially the fact that as per the FIR, no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner and simply it has been mentioned that on 16.01.2025 offence was committed by the petitioner along with his colleague; trial will take time 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 bail application. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Manish Gurjar S/o Suman Prakash, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) together with [2026:RJ-JP:2013] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16977/2025] two sureties in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh 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. 7. Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the petitioner, it is made clear that the he shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first and third weeks of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner, as directed above. 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. 9. 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 him by this Court. 10. Office is directed to send copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. The observation made herein above 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 /179