[2025:RJ-JP:27034] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 8520/2025 Vedprakash S/o Kalluram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Gadhmora, Police Station Gadhmora, District Karauli (Raj.) (At Present Petitioner Confined At Sub Jail Gangapur City). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Sweta Soni with Mr. Manish Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 21/07/2025 1. This second bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.226/2023 registered at Police Station Udai Mod, District Gangapur City (Raj.) for offences punishable under Sections 302, 394, 458, 143, 323, 341 & 506 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 396, 460, 147, 148, 149, 323, 341 & 506 of IPC. 2. The first bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that after [2025:RJ-JP:27034] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-8520/2025] dismissal of first bail application of the petitioner, some material witnesses have been examined and it appears from their testimony that petitioner was not armed with sharp-edged weapon. Counsel submits that as per the post-mortem report, cause of death is sharp injuries on the chest and stomach of the deceased. Counsel submits that it has been admitted by the complainant/informant himself that petitioner was armed with lathi. Counsel submits that till date, only 11 witnesses have been examined out of 23 cited prosecution witnesses thus, trial of the case is likely to take considerable time. Counsel submits that co- accused namely- Vivek has already been granted benefit of bail by this Court vide order dated 20.05.2025 and case of the petitioner is also on similar footing. As per impugned order dated 06.06.2025 passed by learned trial court while dismissing the bail application of the petitioner, there are no criminal antecedents against him. Counsel contends that petitioner is in custody since 14.09.2023 and as such he has served incarceration of almost one year ten months. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that it is evident from the charge-sheet as well as testimony of prosecution witnesses that petitioner was present at the place of incident and he was armed with lathi therefore, it is a clear case of Section 149 of IPC. 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 both the [2025:RJ-JP:27034] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-8520/2025] parties, as also considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, testimony of material witnesses including complainant recorded during the course of the trial, as also the role attributed to the petitioner, co-accused namely- Vivek has been granted benefit of bail by this Court and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner -Vedprakash S/o Kalluram, 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. 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 LALIT MOHAN /33