Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Mukul Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:27324) on 17 June, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:27324]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7088/2025
1. Mukul Kumar S/o Late Shri Tinku Singh, Aged About 27
Years, Resident Of Haludabani Near Sidhkanu Chowk
Parsudi Tata Nagar Police Station Parsudi District East
Singhbhum Jharkhand (At Present Lodged In Central Jail
Udaipur)
2. Jayesh S/o Sukh Lal, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of
Village Devpuriya Police Station Sadar Rajnagar District
Rajsamand (At Present Lodged In Central Jail Udaipur)
3. Neeraj Singh S/o Shankar Lal Choudhary, Aged About 21
Years, Resident Of Jat Mohalla Jeevakheda Police Station
Railmagra Districrt Rajsamand (At Present Lodged In
Central Jail Udaipur)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Ranawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. SS Rathore, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
17/06/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance
of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter
are tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 175/2025 2. Concerned Police Station Gordhan Vilas 3. District Udaipur 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 3/4 of Rajasthan Sarvajanik Dhyut Adhyadesh, (Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 09:35:47 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:27324] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-7088/2025] 1949 & Sections 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 112(2), 61(2) of BNS & Section 66B, 66D of IT Act 5. Offences added, if any - 6. Date of passing of impugned order 03.06.2025
2. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioners that the
offences alleged are triable by a Court of magistrate. No case
for the alleged offences is made out against them and their
incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in
the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the
accused-petitioners and they have been made accused based
on conjectures and surmises.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail
application and submits that the present case is not fit for
enlargement of accused on bail.
4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties
and have perused the material available on record. The
offences alleged are triable by a Court of magistrate. There is
high probability that the trial may take long time to conclude.
In light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed
suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioners in the
present matter.
5. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-
petitioners as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 09:35:47 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27324] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-7088/2025]
bail provided each of them 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 as and
when called upon to do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J
98-divya/-
(Downloaded on 18/06/2025 at 09:35:47 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)