Allowed

Gaurav S/O Shri Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Oct 2025CRLMB/9678/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Third bail application under Section 483 BNSS by an accused in FIR No.189/2024 for offences under the BNS, 2023. Court noted prolonged custody and slow trial, granted bail with conditions including monthly police-station attendance.

What did the court decide?

Accused-petitioner to be released on bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each, subject to attendance and conduct conditions.

Gaurav S/O Shri Amar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:40942]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc. 3^rd Bail Application No. 9678/2025

¶4

Gaurav S/o Shri Amar Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Santha, P/s Mahwa District Dausa (Raj.). At Present Devatwal Colony, Bandikui District Dausa (Presently In Jail At Bandikui District Dausa (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rajendra Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP
	Mr. Tapesh Agarwal,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order

¶11

07/10/2025

¶12

This third bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.189/2024 registered at Police Station Baijupada, District Dausa for offences punishable under Sections 140(2), 324(4), 303(2) and 127(7) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short, ‘BNS’), 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 140(2), 324(4), 303(2), 127(7), 111(4), 309(4) and 111(2)(b) of BNS, 2023.

¶13

The first bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 27.11.2024 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after filing result of investigation. Thereafter, second bail application

[2025:RJ-JP:40942]

[CRLMB-9678/2025]

(2 of 4)

was preferred which was also dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 15.01.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of the complainant/informant as well as his cousin brother- Anil. Now, the aforesaid witnesses have been examined during the course of trial thus, this third bail application has been preferred.

¶18

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that petitioner is innocent and has maliciously been implicated in the present case. It is submitted that the facts brought on record, particularly, the deposition of aforesaid two witnesses indicate that dispute between petitioner and complainant appears to be of monetary nature. It is submitted that owing to this financial disagreement, the facts seen to have been distorted and exaggerated, resulting in the registration of a false and frivolous case against the petitioner and co-accused. Moreover, it has been admitted by witnesses in their crossexamination that neither they nor their family members had transferred any amount in the account of the petitioner or coaccused persons. This raises serious doubt regarding the veracity of the allegations concerning financial transactions forming the basis of this false complaint. It has also been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the witnesses have not identified the petitioner because, according to the witnesses, the petitioner and co-accused were strangers for them. Despite this, nowhere during their testimony, did the witnesses state that the persons standing in the dock were the ones who committed crime

(3 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:40942]

[CRLMB-9678/2025]

with them. Learned counsel contends that, however, in any criminal trial, it is imperative for the prosecution to establish the identity of accused. It is contended that petitioner is in judicial custody since 06.10.2024. It is contended that only two witnesses have been examined out of 20 cited prosecution witnesses therefore, there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶23

Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that ample evidence is available on record showing involvement of the petitioner in commission of crime. He further submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as four other cases have been registered against him.

¶24

I have considered the contentions.

¶25

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, as also considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet including testimony of witnesses recorded so far and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the third bail application.

¶26

This third bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Gaurav S/o Shri Amar Singh, shall be released on bail provided, he shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together

[2025:RJ-JP:40942]

[CRLMB-9678/2025]

(4 of 4)

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 he 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.

¶31

Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, it is made clear that accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded.

¶32

Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner, as directed above. In case the petitioner fails to mark his 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.

¶33

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 him by this Court.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶37

CHARU SONI /38

Gaurav S/O Shri Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav S/O Shri Amar Singh 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

Nawab Shekh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Girraj Nayak S/O Sh. Babulal Vs State of Rajasthan

Hariom Suman S/O Late Sh. Devi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Sarjeet Singh S/O Shri Subesingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Choudhary @ Bhanu S/O Ramrukh Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Anil S/O Murarilal Vs the State of Rajasthan