The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP v. Connected

2. Indraj @ Tiger S/o Shriram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Dhani Govinda Wali Tan Raipur, Police Station Patan, District Neem Ka Thana. (Presently Accused Petitioner Is In District Jail At Kotputali (Raj.))

3. Ishwar @ Baba S/o Subesingh, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Nangal Chechi Ka Thana Paniyala, District Kotputli-Behror. (Presently Accused Petitioner Is In District Jail At Kotputali (Raj.)) State Of Rajasthan, Through PP Versus ----Petitioners ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikash Kumar Jhakhar Mr. Manish Gupta Mr. Mukul Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order [2025:RJ-JP:28319] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-6585/2025] 28/07/2025

1. These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.242/2024 registered at Police Station Sarund, District Kotputli-Behror for the offences punishable under Sections 326(g), 331(6), 189(2), 324(4) (5), 115(2), 126(2), 119(1) and 109(1) of IPC.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that it is a case of no injury. It is contended that trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest. Charge-sheet has been filed and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that petitioners are habitual offenders and number of cases have been registered against them.

5. I have considered the contentions. 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 it is a case of no injury; trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail applications. [2025:RJ-JP:28319] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-6585/2025]

6. This bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners–Rambeer @ Bhalla S/o Amilal, Satish @ Satyaveer @ Satveer @ Satta S/o Khayaliram, Ajeet Kumar @ Kalu S/o Ramphal, Ankit Kumar Gurjar @ Wanted @ Ropa S/o Bhomaram, Rohitash Gurjar S/o Indraj Gurjar, Madhusudhan @ Mannu @ Monu S/o Ashok Kumar, Ramsingh Gurjar S/o Jayram, Rajesh @ Raju S/o Ramota @ Bhalaram, Ashok Kumar @ SP @ Sonu S/o Jainarayan, Indraj @ Tiger S/o Shriram and Ishwar @ Baba S/o Subesingh shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five 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. 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 second week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded.

8. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioners, as directed above. In case the petitioners fail to mark their presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this [2025:RJ-JP:28319] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-6585/2025] 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 them by this Court.

10. The observation made herein above is only for decision of the instant bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.

11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned S.H.O. for necessary compliance. pcg/141-144 (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J