[2025:RJ-JP:14571] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 4394/2025 Faijan Ahmed S/o Firoz Ahmed, Aged About 31 Years, R/o- 786, Noor Manzil Ke Pass, P.S. Kishorpura, Kota (Raj.) (Accused At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samarth Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 01/04/2025 1. The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.103/2024 registered at Police Station Kishorpura, District Kota City (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 302, 504 & 34 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that while rejecting the first bail application of the petitioner liberty was granted to renew the prayer of bail after recording testimony of the Doctors, who treated the deceased. It is submitted that medical experts have been examined during the course of the trial and it appears from their testimony that no injury was found on the person of the deceased during the course of treatment. It has also been stated by them that when deceased was admitted in the [2025:RJ-JP:14571] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4394/2025] hospital his blood pressure was very high and primary cause of death is unnatural bleeding of the brain on account of high blood pressure. He further argues that as matter was not reported to the Police and initially, there was no allegation of causing any injuries therefore, no postmortem was conducted in this matter. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter on the basis of CCTV footage recovered from the place of incident as some scuffle could be seen between the deceased and petitioner in the footage. He further argues that co-accused person namely- Jishan Ahmed has already been granted benefit of bail by this Court. He contends that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. He further contends that petitioner is in custody since 30.05.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 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 petitioner, especially considering the testimony of the Doctors who treated the deceased before his death, so also considering the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner; charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the [2025:RJ-JP:14571] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4394/2025] merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the second bail application. 6. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Faijan Ahmed S/o Firoz Ahmed, shall be released on bail provided he 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 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. 7. The observation made herein above is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/269