Allowed

Jaiveer S/O Rohitash v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Feb 2025CRLMB/13307/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second bail application under Section 483 BNSS for offences under Sections 3/25 and 5/25 Arms Act arising from FIR 72/2024. Petitioner in custody since 08.04.2024, implicated through co-accused's inconsistent Section 27 informations; court granted regular bail without commenting on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on furnishing personal bond Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs.50,000 each to trial court's satisfaction.

Jaiveer S/O Rohitash Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:5820]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 13307/2024

¶4

Jaiveer S/o Rohitash, R/o Ghardana Kalan, Police Station Singhana, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. (At Present Lodge At Central Jail, Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sonal Gupta for Mr. Sudhir Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, P.P.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶11

Order

¶12

10/02/2025

¶13

This 2^nd bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the B.N.S.S. arising out of F.I.R. No.72/2024, registered with the Police Station Singhana, District Jhunjhunu, for the offences punishable under Sections 3/25 & 5/25 of the Arms Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case only on the basis of information given by co-accused, Yogesh @ Yogi under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offences and he is in judicial custody since 08.04.2024. Learned counsel further submits that the other co-accused person, namely Atul, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court. Thus, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the accused-

(2 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:5820]

[CRLMB-13307/2024]

petitioner behind the bars for a long time, therefore, he may be enlarged on regular bail.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has opposed the bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.

¶20

Heard. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the charge-sheet filed in the matter.

¶21

It is emanating from the record that as per the information recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on 26.03.2024, the co-accused person, namely Yogesh @ Yogi has informed that he could identify the place where he has purchased the alleged fire arm and bullets from one, Atul. In another information recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on 28.03.2024, the coaccused, Yogesh @ Yogi has again stated that he has purchased the fire arms and bullets from one, Atul Choudhary. However, in another information recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act on 30.03.2024 by the co-accused, Yogesh @ Yogi, the farmhouse of the petitioner has been recorded as the place of purchase of the fire arms.

¶22

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the totality of facts & circumstances of the case and also the fact that the accusedpetitioner is in judicial custody since 08.04.2024, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits & demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

¶23

Accordingly, this 2^nd bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner, namely Jaiveer S/o Rohitash,

[2025:RJ-JP:5820]

[CRLMB-13307/2024]

(3 of 3)

shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before the trial Court or any other Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶28

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶29

SAHIL SONI /24

Jaiveer S/O Rohitash v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaiveer S/O Rohitash v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mangal Chand Saini S/O Shri Bhanwar Lal Saini Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kernel Singh Urf Kali S/O Balwant Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Krishna Das Agrawal Son of Shri Ranchod Das Agrawal Vs Income Tax Department

Ankit S/O Sumer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Farook S/O Bhanwaru Khan Moyal, Vs Pyarelal S/O Nemichand

Dhanraj Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.