[2025:RJ-JP:25259] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 7256/2025 Yogesh S/o Veersingh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Mohanpur, Police Station Kudgaon, District Karauli, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined At District Jail Gangapur City, Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhanesh Kumar Saini with Mr. Vaibhav Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 09/07/2025 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.84/2024 registered at Police Station Wazirpur, District Gangapur City (Rajasthan) for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 307 & 34 of IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge- sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 394, 307, 34, 323 & 325 of IPC and Section 5/27 of Arms Act. 2. First bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording testimony of both the injured witnesses namely Shrawan and Ishtaq. Now, both witnesses have been examined during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred. [2025:RJ-JP:25259] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-7256/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that after rejection of the first bail application, both the witnesses have been examined during the course of trial and they have not alleged anything against the petitioner. It is submitted that both the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. He argues that they failed to identify the petitioner in Court. He contends that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. He further contends that the petitioner is in custody since 15.07.2024 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 incident has been verified by both the witnesses. However, he fairly concedes the fact that both witnesses failed to identify the petitioner in Court as assailant. 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 available before me in the form of charge-sheet including testimony of both the witnesses wherein they have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, 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 [2025:RJ-JP:25259] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-7256/2025] directed that accused-petitioner Yogesh S/o Veersingh 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 first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 9. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner, as directed above. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 10. 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. 11. 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 /82