[2025:RJ-JP:20827] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 4976/2025 Ved Prakash @ Ummed S/o Shri Bhuraram, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Khanpur, Police Station Singhana, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) (At Present In District Jail, Jhunjhunu). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahala For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakad, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 16/05/2025 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. 297/2021 registered at Police Station Singhana, District Jhunjhunu(Raj.) for the offences punishable under Section 447, 302 & 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 302 & 34 of IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. 2. First bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.07.2023 with liberty to renew the payer of bail after recording testimony of complainant and other witnesses namely- Jinesh S/o Harphool, Ajay Kumar, Surendra Kumar, Rahul S/o Sunil and Surendra S/o Subhash. Now, [2025:RJ-JP:20827] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4976/2025] complainant as well as all the aforementioned witnesses have been examined during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. Counsel submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that independent witness namely- Surendra has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. It is submitted that Jinesh S/o Harphool and Ajay Kumar are son and grand-son of deceased. Counsel submits that semi auto pistol has been shown to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner however, it has been opined in the FSL report that it has not been possible to link definitely one 7.65mm K.F. cartridge case (C/1) from packet ‘E’ with submitted 7.65mm/0.32 semi auto pistol (W/1) from packet ‘J’ due to lack of sufficient evidence. Counsel submits that co-accused persons namely- Narendra Singh and Sunil Kumar have been granted benefit of bail by co-ordinate bench of this Court. Counsel submits that till date, only 7 witnesses have been examined out of 22 prosecution witnesses thus, there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future. It is contended that petitioner is in custody since 29.10.2021 and as such he has already served incarceration of about three and a half years. Counsel relies upon the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court wherein bail was granted to the accused after considering the period of custody. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Counsel submits that it appears from the testimony of son and grand-son of the deceased that [2025:RJ-JP:20827] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4976/2025] petitioner is main culprit who caused firearm injury on the person of the deceased and cause of death is firearm injury. 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, material available on record in the form of charge-sheet including testimony of independent witness, as also considering that petitioner is in custody since 29.10.2021 and till date, only 7 witnesses have been examined out of 22 prosecution witnesses, 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 Ved Prakash @ Ummed, 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 observations made hereinabove 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 HEENA/34