[2026:RJ-JP:24341] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8188/2026 URN: CRLMB / 14965U / 2026 Tarun S/o Shri Vijay Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Ranglal Ka Pura, P.s. Todabhim, District Karauli (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Hindaun City). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohar Pal Meena For State For Respondent(s) : : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl. G.A. Mr. Ravindra Kumar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 01/07/2026 1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 18.05.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1 Hindaun City, District Karauli, in Bail Application No.362/2026, whereby the bail application of the petitioner was rejected in connection with F.I.R. No.152/2026, Police Station Todabhim, District Karauli for the offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 221, 132, 109(1) of the BNS, 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fire-arm that was used in the alleged incident was used by one co-accused Bheem Singh. Even in the FIR as well as in the statement under Section 180 BNS, 2023, the allegation of using fire-arm is mainly against Bheem Singh. [2026:RJ-JP:24341] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-8188/2026] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that all the offences, except the offence under Section 109(1) of the BNS, 2023, are triable by a Magistrate. He submits that the petitioner was merely present at the place of incident and has been falsely implicated in the FIR. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner of having committed offences of similar nature or otherwise. He further submits that the conclusion of the investigation/trial is likely to take a considerable time; therefore, he prays that the petitioner be enlarged on bail, as he has been in custody since 07.05.2026. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant and the learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently oppose the bail application. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant submit that there is recovery of a scooty from the petitioner, and therefore his involvement is reflected on record. He thus submits that he may not be enlarged on bail. However, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant could not refute the fact that fire-arm was used by Bheem Singh and not by the present petitioner. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate and respondent and perused the material available on record. 8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and upon consideration of the submissions advanced, and particularly the fact that all the offences except the offence under Section 109(1) of the BNS, 2023 are triable by a Magistrate; that the offence under Section 109(1) of the BNS, 2023 is attributed to co- [2026:RJ-JP:24341] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-8188/2026] accused Bheem Singh; that the conclusion of investigation/trial is likely to take a considerable time; and that the accused is in custody since 07.05.2026, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application deserves to be allowed. 9. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner-Tarun S/o Shri Vijay Singh arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.152/2026, Police Station Todabhim, District Karauli, shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rs. One Lakh Only) with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) each, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so till the completion of the trial and with additional following conditions: (i) The petitioner shall not leave country without the permission of the Court; (ii) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected; and (iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (BIPIN GUPTA),J 58/MAHIMA