[2025:RJ-JP:22758] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 7122/2025 Raju @ Rajendra S/o Rambilas, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Luhariya Police Station Aklera District Jhalawar(Raj)(At Present Confined In Sub District Jail Aklera District Jhalawar(Raj) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 30/05/2025 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.455/2024 registered at Police Station Aklera, District Jhalawar (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 352, 109(2) & 126(2) of BNS, 2023. Later on, Police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. First bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording the testimony of complainant, eye witnesses and Doctor, who conducted postmortem. Now, all the witnesses have been examined during 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. He further submits that [2025:RJ-JP:22758] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-7122/2025] complainant and other eye-witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile to the extent of the petitioner. He contends that there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future. He further contends that the petitioner is in custody since 07.11.2024 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 according to the evidence of the Doctor, death was occurred on account of the injuries sustained by the deceased, which were caused by the accused person, but, he fairly concedes that there is no allegation against the petitioner in the testimony of the eye-witnesses. 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 parties, as also looking to the fact that eye- witnesses of this case have been examined during course of the trial, they have not alleged anything against the petitioner 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 directed that accused-petitioner Raju @ Rajendra S/o Rambilas 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 [2025:RJ-JP:22758] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-7122/2025] 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. 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 MADAN/60