Ankit @ Monu S/O Mukhram Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:38164]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11703/2025

Ankit @ Monu S/o Mukhram Yadav, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Nai Sadak Kheda Shyampura Police Station Bansur District Kotputali Behror. (Accused In Sub Jail Behror).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11704/2025 Mahesh Gurjar S/o Hukamchand, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Mugalpur, P.s Harsora District Kotputali Behror. (Accused In Sub Jail Behror).

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11873/2025 Suresh Gurjar S/o Jalesingh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Devsan, Police Station Harsora, District Kotputali-Behror (Raj.) (Presently Accused Petitioner Is In District Jail At Kotputali (Raj.))

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Jai Raj Tantia
	Mr. Manish Gupta
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP
	Mr. Tapesh Agarwal,PP

¶21

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶22

Order

¶23

18/09/2025

¶24

These bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS have been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in

(2 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:38164]

[CRLMB-11703/2025]

connection with FIR No.119/2025 registered at Police Station Harsora, District Kotputli-Behror (Raj.) for offences punishable under Sections 111(2)(b), 310(4) & 310(5) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3/25 & 4/25 of Arms Act, 1959 (Amendment 2019).

¶29

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that petitioners have been made accused in this case solely on the basis of police interrogation of co-accused persons who were apprehended at spot. It is submitted that coaccused persons who were apprehended at spot have already been granted benefit of bail by this court. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submit that petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶30

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that petitioners are habitual offenders as several other cases have been registered against them and petitioner- Mahesh Gurjar is a hardcore criminal as 19 other cases have been registered against him.

¶31

I have considered the contentions.

¶32

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, especially considering the fact that petitioners were not apprehended at the spot, so also the fact that co-accused persons who were apprehended at spot have already been granted benefit of bail by this court and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the

[2025:RJ-JP:38164]

[CRLMB-11703/2025]

(3 of 4)

custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow these bail applications.

¶37

These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners – 1) Ankit @ Monu S/o Mukhram Yadav, 2) Mahesh Gurjar S/o Hukamchand and 3) Suresh Gurjar S/o Jalesingh 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.

¶38

It is made clear that the accused-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and petitionersAnkit @ Monu and Suresh Gurjar shall mark their presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station and petitioner- Mahesh Gurjar shall make his presence in first and third week of every month.

¶39

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 regard.

¶40

If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:38164]

[CRLMB-11703/2025]

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.

¶45

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance.

¶46

The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of these bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.

¶47

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶48

GAUTAM JAIN /45-47

Ankit @ Monu S/O Mukhram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankit @ Monu S/O Mukhram Yadav v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogesh Kulshrestha S/O Suresh Kulshrestha Vs State of Rajasthan

Leelaram S/O Shri Sultan Vs State of Rajasthan

Gurvindra Singh S/O Dalbara Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajay Singh @ Chinnu S/O Shri Balwant Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kaluram @ Kalu @ Laxman S/O Sh. Shankar Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamlesh Urf Aasu S/O Shri Seduram Vs State of Rajasthan