[2026:RJ-JP:18097] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3833/2026 Kehari S/o Hariya, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Bodolidahar, Police Station Pahri, District Deeg. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail Deeg). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3933/2026 Ghanshyam Son Of Ramhans, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Village Badoli Dahar, Police Station Pahari, District Deeg ( Rajasthan) ( At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail Deeg) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Sinsinwar For Respondent(s) For Complainant : : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP Mr. Karan Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 29/04/2026 1. The petitioners have filed these bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.276/2025 registered at Police Station Pahari, District Deeg for offences under Sections 191(2), 190, 115(2), 126(2), 103(1), 351(2), 352 and 125 of BNS, 2023. 2. Since both these bail applications arise out of common FIR, hence, they are being decided by this common order. [2026:RJ-JP:18097] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3833/2026] 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in these cases. He further submits that in the present matter, the FIR names 18 persons specifically, however, the name of the present petitioners does not find mention therein. He submits that the complainant, Sohan Singh, as well as the injured, Pradeep, have also not named the present petitioners in their statements recorded under Section 180 of the BNSS in connection with the alleged incident. He further submits that the CCTV footage collected by the Investigating Officer does not establish the presence of the petitioners at the place of occurrence, and that the petitioners have been implicated in the present case solely on the basis of statements of single witness Nanak recorded after the incident. Petitioners are behind the bars since 07.11.2025, and that the charge-sheet has already been filed. The trial of the case will take considerable time, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in further custody, consequently, the bail applications deserves to be allowed. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application. 6. On consideration of the rival submissions and material available on record and in the light of submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, I am inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioners. [2026:RJ-JP:18097] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3833/2026] 7. Consequently, the bail applications under Section 483 B.N.S.S. are allowed and it is directed that the petitioners Kehari S/o Hariya and Ghanshyam Son Of Ramhans, be released on bail provided each of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that each of them shall appear before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing till conclusion of the trial. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J Arun/29-30