[2025:RJ-JP:15939] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 4797/2025 Ashok Kumar S/o Ramniwas, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ucchar, Police Station Laxmangarh, District Alwar (At Present In Central Jail In Judicial Custody Since 22.07.2024). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajeev Surana, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sankalp Sogani Mr. Anuj rohila Ms. Muskan Verma Mr. Umang Jain For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Shri Ram Dhakad, PP Mr. Rinesh Gupta Mr. Girish Khandelwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 08/04/2025 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.176/2024 registered at Police Station Narayanpur, District Kotptli-Behror for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 190, 115(2), 126(2), 109(1), 103(2) & 191(3) of BNS. Later on, police filed the charge-sheet in the matter for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 190, 115(2), 126(2), 109(1), 103(2), 191(3), 309(4) & 61(2)(a) of BNS. 2. First bail application (No.10052/2024) filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by this court vide order dated [2025:RJ-JP:15939] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4797/2025] 03.12.2024 looking to the nature of allegations, gravity of offence and the reply given by the petitioner in response to the notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that admittedly, petitioner was not present at the place of incident. He is neither named in parcha-bayan of the deceased nor he has been named in the statements of injured witnesses recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the reply given in response to the notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicles Act cannot be used against the petitioner because at the time of issuance of such notice, he was already in custody. Counsel submits that earlier this fact could not be brought before this Court that at the time of issuance of notice under Section 133 of MV Act, the petitioner was in custody, therefore the reply to the notice is of no avail. Petitioner is in custody since 22.07.2024. Charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time in its completion. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that after rejection of first bail application of the petitioner, there is no substantial change in the circumstances. There are five other cases registered against the petitioner. 5. I have considered the contentions. [2025:RJ-JP:15939] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4797/2025] 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as also considering the fact that petitioner was not present at the place of incident; he was not named in parcha-bayan of the deceased as also the fact that petitioner was in custody at the time of issuance of notice under Section 133 of MV Act; trial will take time 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 this second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Ashok Kumar S/o Ramniwas, 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. 8. 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 GAUTAM JAIN /31