[2025:RJ-JP:21134] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 6588/2025 Neeraj S/o Kunwarsain, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Tamrer, Police Station Kumher, District Deeg (Raj.) (At Present Confined At Central Jail Bharatpur). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhlesh Katara For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 20/05/2025 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.755/2024 registered at Police Station Kumher, District Deeg (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 190, 191(2) & 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023 and Section 3/25(6) of Arms Act, 1959 (Amendment 2019). 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 19.02.2025 while giving liberty to the petitioner to renew the prayer of bail after recording the testimony of injured as well as medical expert who prepared the MLC. 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 cross- [2025:RJ-JP:21134] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-6588/2025] cases have been registered between the parties. Counsel submits that it is apparent from the testimony of Dr. Rakesh Kumar (medical expert) that medical papers on the basis of which opinion was given by him are not available in the file. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since 03.11.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of causing firearm injury and same has been opined as dangerous to life which is evident from the statement of Dr. Rakesh Kumar (medical expert). Counsel further submits that said injury has been caused on vital part of the body which is between the chest and stomach. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially considering the role attributed to the petitioner as well as looking to the nature and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 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 /31