[2026:RJ-JP:12427] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2458/2026 Mausam Sudhakar @ Sudhakar Reddy S/o Mausam Komraya, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 3-4-42 Ramagundam, Police Station Ramagundam, District Karim Nagar, Telangana, At Present Tenant 12-13-1135, Siddarth Nagar Tarnaka, Police Station Tarnaka, District Hyderabad, Telangana, At Present Tenant Flat No. 604, Kriyansh Heights, Indraprasth Colony, Police Station Chitrakoot, Jaipur. (At Present Confined At Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shiv Kumar Jangir, Adv., with Ms. Monika Shekhawat, Adv., for Mr. Rajesh Goswami, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP with Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 24/03/2026 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.490/2025 registered at Police Station Chitrakoot, District Jaipur (West) for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 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 no specific allegation against the petitioner of receiving money from the complainant and main allegation is against co-accused Deepak Rohila @ Jadugar Samrat. He further submits that the alleged offences are [2026:RJ-JP:12427] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2458/2026] triable by Magistrate. It is also submitted that five cases have been registered against the petitioner with the same police station within the short span of time. He argues that trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. He further argues that the petitioner is in custody since 23.01.2026 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. 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 learned counsel for the petitioner, especially the fact that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate; filing of charge-sheet and trial will take 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. 6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Mausam Sudhakar @ Sudhakar Reddy S/o Mausam Komraya shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh Only) together with 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. 7. Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, it is [2026:RJ-JP:12427] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2458/2026] 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. 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 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. 10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. 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/72