[2026:RJ-JP:12885] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2751/2026 1. Ghanshyam Meena S/o Bajrang Lal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Vijaygarh, Police Station Nagar Fort, District Tonk, Presently Tenant Near Lal Bagh, Police Station Shivdaspura, Jaipur. (At present accused-petitioners confined in Central Jail Jaipur). 2. Manoj Meena S/o Laddu Lal Meena, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Khohalya, Police Station Banetha, District Tonk, Presently Tenant Village Vimalpura, Police Station Shivdaspura, Jaipur. (At present accused-petitioners confined in Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan through P.P. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3747/2026 Sunil Bairwa S/o Sitaram Bairwa, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Hingoniya, Police Station Datwas, District Tonk, At Present At House No. 72, Kamdhenu Colony, Behind Lal Bagh, Bilwa, Police Station Shivdaspura, Jaipur. (At present confined in Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan, through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Sharma for Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 27/03/2026 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.672/2025 registered at Police Station Jawahar Circle, District Jaipur City (East) (Rajasthan) for offences [2026:RJ-JP:12885] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-2751/2026] punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 140(3), 309(6), 3(5) & 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. During investigation, offence punishable under Section 3/25(1B) (A) of Arms Act has also been added in this matter. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submit that allegation of loot of Rs.35,000/- is against the unknown persons. Counsel submit that it is evident from the FIR that neither physical features of the assailants have been mentioned nor it is stated by the complainant in the FIR that he can identify the assailants. Counsel submit that in these circumstances, identification parade has no evidentiary value. Counsel further submit that for almost similar offence, another FIR was also registered against the petitioners wherein they have been granted benefit of bail by learned trial Court. Counsel submit that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. Counsel submit that charge-sheet has been filed in this matter. It is submitted that petitioners Ghanshyam Meena and Manoj Meena are in custody since 24.12.2025 whereas petitioner Sunil Bairwa is in custody since 22.01.2026 and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned State Counsel opposes the bail applications. She submits that in test identification parade, petitioners have been identified by the victim of this 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 learned [2026:RJ-JP:12885] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-2751/2026] counsel for the petitioners, especially considering the material available before this Court in the form of case diary, as also the fact that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate; charge-sheet has been filed in this matter; 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-petitioners – (1) Ghanshyam Meena S/o Bajrang Lal, (2) Manoj Meena S/o Laddu Lal Meena & (3) Sunil Bairwa S/o Sitaram Bairwa shall be released on bail provided, each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees 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 in first week of every month 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 [2026:RJ-JP:12885] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-2751/2026] regard. 9. If any breach of these conditions is reported or comes 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 /35-36