Allowed

Monu @ Kera S/O Bhagwan v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Dec 2025CRLMB/15574/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Third bail application under Section 483 BNSS by accused arrested for offences under Section 387 IPC and the Arms Act arising from FIR 159/2024. Citing prolonged custody and likely delay in trial, and without commenting on merits, the court enlarged the petitioner on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Accused-petitioner enlarged on bail on personal bond Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each; conditions of monthly presence before SHO and address verification imposed.

Monu @ Kera S/O Bhagwan Vs the State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:48655]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IIIrd Bail Application No. 15574/2025

¶4

Monu @ Kera S/o Bhagwan, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Tripadi, Police Station Farukh Nagar, Gurugram, Haryana. (At Present In Center Jail, Alwar).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

01/12/2025

¶13

The instant third bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 159/2024 registered at Police Station Shivaji Park, District Alwar for the offences under Section 387 of IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed on 24.09.2024, with the liberty to file afresh after recording the statement of the recovery witnesses pertaining to fire arm allegedly recovered at the instance of accused. It is contended that the Investigating Officer has been examined as PW-10 and in his examination in chief though he has stated that at the instance of petitioner the fire arm was recovered however, the FSL report

[2025:RJ-JP:48655]

[CRLMB-15574/2025]

(2 of 4)

was insufficient to link cartridges from the fire arm used allegedly. In the FSL report it is opined that it has not been possible to link definitely two damaged copper jacket pieces and one damaged lead piece from packet "a" with submitted .303" country made pistol(W/1) from packet 'B', due to lack of sufficient evidence.

¶19

It is also argued that no identification was conducted by the Investigating Officer from the main witness PW-1 Rajesh and in his cross examination he has clearly stated that no identification parade was conducted. It is also contended that even learned Public Prosecutor did not conduct identification of the petitioner during trial from the eye witness PW-1 Rajesh. It is alleged that the petitioner alongwith the other co-accused threatened the complainant PW-1 Rajesh and fired at him, demanding one crore rupees, the said slip was also not sent for FSL examination. The accused-petitioner is in custody since 16.05.2025 and the trial of the case may take considerable time. Other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail, therefore, the third bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and contended that petitioner is a habitual offender and against him two other cases under Section 379 of IPC in Farooq Nagar, Gurgaon, Haryana have been registered. The accused-petitioner belongs to other State and if the petitioner is enlarged on bail then there is every possibility that petitioner may not turn up before the court for trial, therefore, considering the above facts, his bail application deserves to be dismissed.

¶21

Heard and perused the material available on the record.

[2025:RJ-JP:48655]

[CRLMB-15574/2025]

(3 of 4)

Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the fact that the accused-petitioner is in custody since long and the trial of the case may take considerable time, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

¶26

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Monu @ Kera S/o Bhagwan, in connection with FIR No.159/2024 registered at Police Station Shivaji Park, District Alwar shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. The concerned trial Judge shall verify the address and contact details of the sureties through concerned SHO before releasing the accused-petitioners on bail.

¶27

The accused is also directed to mark his presence on 25^th of every month till conclusion of trial before the concerned police station. The SHO of the concerned police station shall send the presence report of the accused petitioner on the same day to the trial court every month. In case of any breach to the above condition, the learned Public Prosecutor shall be free to move the application against the petitioner for cancellation of the bail before the concerned Court.

¶28

The accused-petitioner is also directed to submit his present address along with the mobile number to the concerned SHO within seven days of release and the concerned SHO shall verify the said address and the mobile number. In case if the petitioner

[2025:RJ-JP:48655]

[CRLMB-15574/2025]

(4 of 4)

changes his address or mobile number, he shall submit the same before the concerned SHO so also before the concerned learned trial court.

¶33

A copy of this order shall be sent to the concerned SHO for its strict compliance.

¶34

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶35

ashu /24

Monu @ Kera S/O Bhagwan v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monu @ Kera S/O Bhagwan v. the 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

Vikrant Kumar @ Anawa S/O Shri Anil Kumar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Lalta Bai W/O Late Shri Badrilal Bheel Vs Chairman, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Mazeed S/O Ismail Kha Vs State of Rajasthan

Firoz S/O Mubarik Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagdish @ Prakash S/O Ramswaroop @ Banshilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Randhir Singh Son of Mahavir Singh Vs State of Rajasthan