[2025:RJ-JP:22392] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 5683/2025 Kaluram S/o Gheesa Ram, R/o Solawata, Police Station Narena, District Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Sub Jail, Sambhar Lake District Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Kumar Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 28/05/2025 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.231/2024 registered at Police Station Narena, District Jaipur (Rural), Rajasthan for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 331(8), 103(1) & 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023 and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015). After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 61(2)(a) & 238(a) of BNS, 2023. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 28.03.2025 while giving liberty to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail in [2025:RJ-JP:22392] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5683/2025] changed circumstances. Now, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that it appears from the charge-sheet that petitioner was not present at the place of incident at the time of alleged incident. Counsel submits that petitioner has been roped in this case with the aid of Section 120B of IPC (Section 61(2) of BNS, 2023). Counsel submits that main allegation of committing murder is against co- accused Roduram, who is son of the petitioner and deceased. Counsel submits that there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future as till date, only six witnesses have been examined out of twenty seven cited prosecution witnesses. It is contended that petitioner is in custody since 04.09.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer of bail made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as apart from this, six other cases have been registered against him. 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 learned counsel for the petitioner, material made available on record in the form of charge-sheet, as also considering the fact that petitioner was not present at the place of incident at the time of alleged incident and there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future as till date, only six witnesses have been examined out of [2025:RJ-JP:22392] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5683/2025] twenty seven cited prosecution witnesses as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Kaluram S/o Gheesa Ram 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 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 LALIT MOHAN /421