[2025:RJ-JP:18310] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 5714/2025 Shivprasad S/o Gopiram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Kundyaal, P.s. Pratapgarh, District Alwar (Rajasthan) ( Confined In Dausa Jail) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hemant Kankoriya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 01/05/2025 1. The instant 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.145/2024 registered at Police Station Senthal, District Dausa (Rajasthan) for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 324(5), 324(6), 303(2) & 131 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023 and Sections 3/25 & 25(6) of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 324(5), 324(6), 131, 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4), 111(5), 61(2) & 49 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3/25, 25(6) & 5/27 of Arms Act. 2. First bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 04.03.2025. Now, this second bail application has been preferred by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that despite [2025:RJ-JP:18310] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5714/2025] allegation of multiple rounds being fired, only one empty cartridge has been recovered from the place of incident. Counsel submits that no country made firearm has been recovered at the instance of petitioner and firearm has been recovered at the instance of co- accused namely- Bittu. According to the CCTV footage, petitioner was not present at the place of incident and he was in a resort from 6:00 am to 8:00 pm. Counsel submits that only one simple injury has been found on the person of the injured. It is submitted that co-accused persons namely- Aditya @ Golya and Vishnu Kumar have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court vide order dated 04.03.2025. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since 11.01.2025 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 three 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, so also considering the fact that only one simple injury was found on the person of the injured, co-accused persons namely- Aditya @ Golya and Vishnu Kumar have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the [2025:RJ-JP:18310] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5714/2025] 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 Shivprasad S/o Gopiram 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. 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 second week of every month in the concerned police station. 9. 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. 10. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /38