[2025:RJ-JP:16855] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 4830/2025 Shakil Ahmed S/o Shri Halim Ahmed, R/o Village Palpur Post Dadupur Tehsil Karchalla District Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh, Currently Residing At Rental Premises At Idgah Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer In Judicial Custody Since 22.09.2024) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Umang Jain with Mr. Anuj Rohila For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Dhakad, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 22/04/2025 1. The second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.339/2024 registered at Police Station Christian Ganj, District Ajmer (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2) & 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109(1), 118(1) & 118(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4/25 of Arms Act. 2. First bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 15.01.2025 with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording testimony of the victim as well as [2025:RJ-JP:16855] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4830/2025] Medical expert, who prepared the MLC. Now, the aforesaid witnesses have been examined during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that it is a case of single injury and same was caused on the non-vital part (thigh) of the body. Counsel submits that initially, the said injury was opined as simple in nature but later on, it was opined as dangerous to life. It is submitted that victim of this case is wife of the petitioner and incident took place in spur of the moment as there was dispute between the petitioner and victim with regard to custody of their child. Counsel submits that one other criminal case has also been registered against the petitioner under Sections 323 and 341 of IPC wherein he is on bail. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since 22.09.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that as per medical expert, injury caused to the injured person has been opined as dangerous to life. 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 both the parties, especially the fact that it is a case of single injury and there is dispute between the petitioner and his wife (victim), so also considering the fact that trial will take considerable time in its [2025:RJ-JP:16855] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4830/2025] 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 the second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Shakil Ahmed S/o Shri Halim 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. 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 /40