[2026:RJ-JP:12729] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4096/2026 Hitesh Prajapat @ Sanju Son of Lalit Prajapat, aged 22 Years, Resident of House No. 27-A, Payal Vihar Colony, Kund Road, Po- lice Station Jaisinghpura, Jaipur. (At present in Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan through P.P. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4447/2026 Tohid son of Mohd. Khurshid, aged about 20 years, R/o Sadat Mohalla, Malpura, Police Station Malpura, District Tonk, At Present R/o House No. 23, Man Bag Khor, Sharda Colony, Jais- inghpura Khor, Jaipur. (Presently confined at Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sharma with Mr. Jitendra Choudhary & Ms. Kamini Mr. Abdul Wahid Naqvi For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 25/03/2026 1. These bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS have been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.281/2025 registered at Police Station Manak Chowk, District Jaipur City (North) (Rajasthan) for offences punishable under Sections 305(a) & 331(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. [2026:RJ-JP:12729] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4096/2026] 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submit that co- accused namely Akram has already been granted benefit of bail by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Counsel submit that charge-sheet has been filed in this matter. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submit that petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail applications. He submits that petitioners are habitual offender as one another case has been registered against the petitioner- Hitesh Prajapat @ Sanju and three other cases have been registered against the petitioner- Tohid. 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 petitioners, especially the fact that co-accused namely Akram has already been granted benefit of bail by co- ordinate Bench of this Court, as also the fact that charge-sheet has been filed in this matter and trial will take 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 fit and proper to allow these bail applications. 6. These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner – (1) Hitesh Prajapat @ Sanju & (2) Tohid shall be released on bail provided, each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees [2026:RJ-JP:12729] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4096/2026] One 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 they 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 petitioners, it is made clear that the accused-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence once in every three months in the concerned police station, till conclusion of the trial. 8. Concerned SHO shall enter attendance of the petitioners in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioners fail to mark their presence in the concerned police station, 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 petitioners by this Court. 10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /94-95