[2026:RJ-JP:23386] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9023/2026 Naveen Kumar Verma S/o Lt. Jaynarayan, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Shop No. 8, Jamnapuri Colony, Murlipura Scheme, Police Station Murlipura Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Centre Jail, Jaipur). ----Accused Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Non Petitioner For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA (V. J.) Order 19/06/2026 1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 02.06.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 05, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, in Bail Application No. 99/2026, whereby the bail application of the petitioner was rejected in connection with F.I.R. No. 355/2026, Police Station-Vishwakarma, District-Jaipur (West), for the offences under Sections 318(3), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 324(5), 329(3) and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that his name does not find mention in the First Information Report (FIR). He further submits that the principal accused has already been granted bail by the learned Trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the sole ground on which the petitioner's bail application was rejected [2026:RJ-JP:23386] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-9023/2026] by the learned Trial Court was the existence of eighteen criminal cases allegedly pending against him, on the basis of which the petitioner was considered to possess criminal antecedents involving offences of a similar nature. However, learned counsel submits that out of the said eighteen cases, fifteen pertain to the year 2012 and arise out of similar allegations. He further submits that the petitioner has already been acquitted in the majority of those cases. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that, in the present FIR, the role attributed to the petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused, and his case cannot be said to stand on a footing less favourable than that of the co- accused who has already been enlarged on bail. Learned counsel further submits that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a considerable period of time and that the offences alleged are triable by a Magistrate. Therefore, he prays that the petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently oppose the present bail application. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering that fifteen out of the eighteen cases pertain to the year 2012 and that the petitioner has already been acquitted in most of those cases, and further considering that the co-accused has already been enlarged on bail, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail. [2026:RJ-JP:23386] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-9023/2026] 8. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner-Naveen Kumar Verma S/o Lt. Jaynarayan arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 355/2026, Police Station Vishwakarma, District Jaipur (West), shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees: One lac Only) with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees: 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 (V. J.)),J 84/JUBIN