[2025:RJ-JP:25039] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 6452/2025 Ummar S/o Jumma, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Jhantali, P.s. Sikari, District Deeg, Rajasthan. (Confined At District Jail, Deeg). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Fajaru S/o Surjan, R/o Jhantali, P.s. Sikari, District Deeg, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Liyakat Khan Ms. Santu Kumari For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 08/07/2025 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.359/2024 registered at Police Station Sikari, District Deeg (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 125, 332(c) & 352 of the Baratiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. During the course of investigation, offences punishable under sections 117(2) and 109 of BNS, 2023 have also been added. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 22.01.2025 while giving liberty to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of two injured witnesses namely- Fajaru [2025:RJ-JP:25039] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-6452/2025] and Iqbal. Now, both the aforementioned witnesses have been examined during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that other co- accused persons namely- Ali Mohmmad and Hasam @ Hakam have already been granted benefit of bail by this court and case of the present petitioner is also on similar footing. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel further submits that petitioner is in custody since 10.11.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as nine other cases have been registered against him and in three cases, he has been convicted. It is submitted that after conviction, benefit of suspension of execution of sentence was granted to the petitioner however, after getting the benefit of suspension of sentence, another offence has been committed by the petitioner thus, benefit of bail should not be granted to him. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially the fact that there is allegation against the petitioner of causing head injury, as also considering the criminal antecedents against the petitioner and in three cases, he has been convicted thus, looking to the nature and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. [2025:RJ-JP:25039] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-6452/2025] 6. Accordingly, this second bail application is dismissed. 7. 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 GAUTAM JAIN /32