[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Roshan Kumar S/O Shyam Babu Prasad vs State Of Raj (2025:Rj-Jp:22170) on 27 May, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Upman
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2025:RJ-JP:22170]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Third Bail Application No. 6803/2025
Hastimal Meena S/o Jaganlal Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Village Post Bilota, Police Station Aligarh, Tehsil Uniyara, District
Tonk. At Present Posted As Mts Karamchari Aayur-Yoga
Preventive Cardiology Vibhag, Rashtriya Ayurveda Sansthan,
Jorawar Singh Gate, Amer Road, Jaipur (Raj.) (At Present
Confined In Central Jail Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Third Bail Application No. 6905/2025
Roshan Kumar S/o Shyam Babu Prasad, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Village Baleitha, Post Nadol, Police Station Masodhi, District
Patna State Bihar, At Presently R/o Mts Karmchari Library
Department, National Institute Of Ayurveda, Jorawar Singh Gate,
Amer Road, Jaipur (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Centre Jail
Jaipur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Raj, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajveer Singh Rajawat
Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
27/05/2025
1. These third bail applications have been filed under Section
483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested
in connection with FIR No.60/2024 registered at Police Station
(Downloaded on 13/06/2025 at 11:21:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:22170] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-6803/2025]
Special Police Station(SOG), District ATS & SOG (Raj.) for the
offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 &
120B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Rajasthan Public Examination
(Prevention of Use of Unfair Means), Act 1992. After completion of
investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the
offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 &
120B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 & 6 of Rajasthan Public Examination
(Prevention of Use of Unfair Means), Act 1992.
2. The first bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioners
were dismissed by this court vide order dated 13.01.2025.
Thereafter, second bail applications filed on behalf of the
petitioners were dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order
dated 06.05.2025 while giving liberty to the petitioners to file
fresh bail applications before the learned trial Court under the
provisions of Section 480(6) of BNSS (corresponding to Section
437(6) of Cr.PC). It is contended that bail application preferred by
the petitioners before the learned Magistrate was dismissed vide
order dated 14.05.2025. Thereafter, they preferred bail
applications under Sections 483 of BNSS before the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II however,
said bail applications were also dismissed vide orders dated
16.05.2025 and 19.05.2025 thus, this third bail applications have
been preferred on behalf of the petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners
have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submit that
petitioners are facing Magistrate trial and it is obligatory for the
learned trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of 60 days
(Downloaded on 13/06/2025 at 11:21:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:22170] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-6803/2025]
from the first date fixed for recording prosecution evidence.
Counsel submit that said provisions are mandatory in nature and
bail can only be refused on the basis of reasonable grounds.
Counsel submit that no such grounds are available on record in
this case. Counsel submit that delay cannot be attributed to the
petitioners as it is evident from the order-sheet that proceedings
were deferred on number of occasions and for different reasons.
Counsel submit that there are no criminal antecedents against the
petitioners and there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near
future. Petitioners are in custody since September, 2024 and
further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful
purpose.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by
counsel for the petitioners.
5. I have considered the contentions.
6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances
of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned
counsel for the parties, especially considering the fact that alleged
offences are triable by magistrate, material made available on
record in the form of charge-sheet, as also considering the fact
that petitioners are in custody since September, 2024 and there is
bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future, but without
commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem
it fit and proper to allow these third bail applications.
7. These third bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is
directed that accused-petitioners- (1) Hastimal Meena S/o
Jaganlal Meena and (2) Roshan Kumar S/o Shyam Babu
(Downloaded on 13/06/2025 at 11:21:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:22170] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-6803/2025]
Prasad 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 any court to which the matter is transferred,
on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to
do so.
8. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of
these bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial
of the case in any manner.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
LALIT MOHAN /38-39
(Downloaded on 13/06/2025 at 11:21:52 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link