HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9399/2026 URN: CRLMB / 17329U / 2026 1. Amar Singh Son Of Shri Hariram, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Mamchari, Police Station, Mamchhari, District Karauli (Rajasthan) 2. Rajaram Son Of Shri Chiranji, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Karsaie, Police Station, Mamchari, District Karauli (Rajasthan) 3. Vachansingh Son Of Shri Parmal, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Mamchari, Police Station, Mamchhari, District Karauli 4. Ramnaresh Son Of Shri Kamal, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Kamarpur Kota, Police Station, Mamchari, District Karauli (Rajasthan) (Presently Confined In District Jail, Karauli) ---Accused-Petitioners Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP. ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9400/2026 URN: CRLMB / 17330U / 2026 Santosh Kumar Son Of Shri Rajulal, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Karsaie, Police Station, Mamchari, District Karauli (Rajasthan) (Presently Confined In District Jail, Karauli) ---Accused-Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta with Mr. Suraj Singh Dhakad For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment / Order 07/07/2026 1. The present bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 11.06.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karauli, in Criminal Misc. Case (CIS) (2 of 3) [CRLMB-9399/2026] Nos.261/2026 & 263/2026, respectively, whereby the bail applications of the petitioners were rejected in connection with F.I.R. No.68/2025, Police Station-Karauli Sadar, District-Karauli for the offences under Sections 189(2), 223(B), 285 of BNS, 2023 & Section 8(B) of the Indian National Highway Act, 1956. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in custody since 04.06.2026. He further submits that the challan in the case has already been filed. Moreover, the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long time. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that only allegation against the petitioner is that they were demonstrating against the administration on account of death one Rajveer. He further submits that they have falsely been implicated in this case as they were were not the demonstrators but they were the viewers, who were seeing the demonstration. He also submits that the offences are triable by Magistrate. He also submits that the petitioners have already remained in judicial custody for more than one month and, therefore, he prays that the petitioners may be enlarged on bail. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposes the present bail applications. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the material available on record. 6. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and upon consideration of the fact that the petitioners have already remained in custody for more than one month; offences are triable by Magistrate; investigation/trial will take considerable (3 of 3) [CRLMB-9399/2026] time, this Court is of the opinion that the bail applications filed by the petitioners deserve to be accepted. 7. Consequently, the bail applications are allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioners namely-(i)Amar Singh Son of Shri Hariram, (ii)Rajaram Son of Shri Chiranji, (iii) Vachansingh Son of Shri Parmal, (iv) Ramnaresh Son Of Shri Kamal & (v) Santosh Kumar Son of Shri Rajulal arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.68/2025, Police Station-Karauli Sadar, District-Karauli, shall be released on bail; provided each of them furnish 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 that they shall appear before the said Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so until completion of the trial, subject to the following conditions: (i) The petitioners shall not leave country without the permission of the Court; (ii) The petitioners shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected; (iii) The petitioners 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 Sudha/48-49