[2025:RJ-JP:27618] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 6592/2025 Hani Singh S/o Saroj Singh, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Jalupura, P.s. Thana Paliganj, District Patna (Bihar) At Present Near Jag- damba School. Nangal Jaisa Bohra, Jaipur, Thana Kardhani, Jaipur. (At Present Confined At Central Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 24/07/2025 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.90/2025 registered at Police Station Kardhani, District Jaipur West (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 189(4) & 308(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023 and Section 3/25 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 The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 27.03.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after filing of result of investigation. Now, charge-sheet has been filed in this matter thus, 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 other co- accused persons namely- Deepak Choudhary & Narendra Singh have already been granted benefit of bail by this court vide order [2025:RJ-JP:27618] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-6592/2025] dated 12.03.2025. Counsel submits that one other case has also been registered against the petitioner wherein benefit of bail has been granted to him. It is further submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel contends that petitioner is in custody since 04.02.2025 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 serious allegation against the petitioner of causing firearm injuries. Counsel submits that according to the FIR, petitioner opened four to five rounds of fire on the person of the injured and his friend and both of them have sustained firearm injuries. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially considering the manner in which offence has been committed thus, 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. However, petitioner would be at liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording the testimony of injured as well as medical expert. 8. Learned trial court is directed to record the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses on priority basis. 9. The observation made hereinabove is only for disposal of the instant bail application and would not prejudice trial in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /29