[2025:RJ-JP:19304] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 5554/2025 Babulal S/o Amarlal, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Bandi Police Station Bhawani Mandi District Jhalawar(Raj) (At Present Confined In Sub District Jail Bhawani Mandi District Jhalawar Raj) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Dhakad, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 07/05/2025 1. This 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.58/2025 registered at Police Station Bhawani Mandi, District Jhalawar (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2) & 110 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. 2. First bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after submission of result of investigation. Now, charge-sheet has been filed in the concerned Court 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 [2025:RJ-JP:19304] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5554/2025] submitted that it is a case of free fight and cross-cases have been registered between the parties. Counsel submits that other co- accused persons namely- Deepak, Ajay Kumar & Ishwarchand have been granted benefit of bail by this court. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since his date of arrest and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that one other case has also been registered against the petitioner. He submits that there is allegation against the petitioner of causing injury on the head of Radhe Shyam and same 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, as also the fact that cross-cases have been registered between the parties and there is no allegation against the petitioner that he repeatedly caused injury on the person of the injured and trial will take considerable time in its 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 - Babulal S/o Amarlal, 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 [2025:RJ-JP:19304] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5554/2025] 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. 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 once in three months in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 9. 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. 10. If breach of any 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. 11. The observations 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 /79