[2025:RJ-JP:21773] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 5535/2025 Firoz S/o Hussain, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Multanpura P.S. Y.D. Nagar (Yashodharman Nagar), Distt. Mandsaur, (M.P.) (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined District Jail Tonk) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijendra Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 23/05/2025 1. This 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.247/2023 registered at Police Station Dooni, District Tonk for the offences punishable under Sections 5, 6, 8 & 9 of Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 and Section 11(1)(D) of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animal Act, 1960. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed on the fact that 15 other cases have been registered against him out of which nine cases were of similar nature and he has been convicted in three cases. Now, this second bail application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:21773] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-5535/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that as per the prosecution case, a pickup was seized on 16.10.2023 wherein eight calves were found tied with ropes and they were being transported in an inhumane manner. It is submitted that petitioner was not present at the time of seizure thereafter, notice under Section 133 of Motor Vehicle Act was given to the owner of the vehicle who disclosed the fact that petitioner was driver of the pickup. Learned counsel contends that except this, no other fact is available on record against the petitioner and his earlier bail application was dismissed considering the fact that nine other cases of similar nature have been registered against him and he has been convicted in three cases. It is contended that though petitioner was convicted in three cases, he was only sentenced with fine. Counsel submits that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. It is contended that petitioner is in custody since 08.11.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as apart from this, 15 other cases have been registered against him including 9 cases of similar nature and in three cases, conviction has been recorded. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been acquitted in these cases. 6. I have considered the contentions. 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances [2025:RJ-JP:21773] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-5535/2025] of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, material made available on record in the form of charge-sheet, as also considering the fact that petitioner is in custody since 08.11.2024 and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this second bail application. 8. The second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Firoz S/o Hussain, 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. 9. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 10. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner, as directed above. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. [2025:RJ-JP:21773] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-5535/2025] 11. If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court. 12. The observation 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 CHARU SONI /37