Raju S/O Gyansingh Vs State of Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:31327]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9734/2025

Raju S/o Gyansingh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Rayanpur, Police Station Sadar Jhalawar, District Jhalawar (Rajasthan) (Presently Confined In Sub Jail, Ramganjmandi)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9953/2025

¶11

Vinod S/o Raglal, R/o Julmi, P.s. Suket Dist. Kota (Raj) (At Present Accused Is Behind The Bar In District Jail Jhalawar).

¶12

Akash S/o Pappu, R/o Kumbhkot, Teh. Ramganjmandi, Kota. (At Present Accused Is Behind The Bar In District Jail Jhalawar).

¶13

----Petitioners

¶14

Versus

¶15

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶16

----Respondent

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg Mr. Vivek Singh Rajawat for Mr. Ajay Singh Yaduvanshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order

¶19

12/08/2025

¶20

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.145/2025 registered at Police Station Suket, District Kota Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 305(a) and 331(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short, ‘BNS’) 2023.

¶21

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. It is

[2025:RJ-JP:31327]

[CRLMB-9734/2025]

(2 of 3)

submitted that other co-accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by learned trial court. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. It is submitted that petitioners are in custody since 30.05.2025 and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶26

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 thus, benefit of bail should not be granted to them. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. 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 alleged offences are triable by Magistrate, as also considering the fact that other co-accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by learned trial court 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 these bail applications.

¶27

These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners (1) Raju S/o Gyansingh, (2) Vinod S/o Raglal, and (3) Akash S/o Pappu, 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

[2025:RJ-JP:31327]

[CRLMB-9734/2025]

(3 of 3)

any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶32

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 first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded.

¶33

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.

¶34

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

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶38

CHARU SONI /240-241

Raju S/O Gyansingh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raju S/O Gyansingh 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

Parsoti @ Purushottam S/O Raghuveer Vs State of Rajasthan

Pritam Singh @ Biddu S/O Hamam Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Vinod Kumar Son of Shri Gumanram Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Neowise College of Nursing Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sonu Gottam S/O Harishankar Vs State of Rajasthan

Sanjay @ Kochiya S/O Bahadur Vs State of Rajasthan