[2025:RJ-JP:25607] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 8573/2025 Jitendra Mandari S/o Shri Ramjeet, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Garu, Police Station Kathumar, District Alwar, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajit Kaswa For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, 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.284/2024 registered at Police Station Brahampuri, District Jaipur City (North) (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 189(2) & 140(3) of BNS. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 191(2), 190, 109(1), 123, 140(2), 311, 61(2)(a) & 310(2) of BNS. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 11.02.2025 however, liberty was granted to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of victims namely Soni Singh & Anuj Meena. Now, [2025:RJ-JP:25607] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-8573/2025] aforesaid witnesses have been examined during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged crime. Counsel submits that the son of the complainant namely Anuj, who has voluntarily gone to Himanchal with his friends, a false story of kidnapping has been made up. Counsel submits that no recovery is to be made from the petitioner. Counsel further submits that till date, only five witnesses have been examined during the course of trial out of twenty two cited prosecution witnesses and there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future. Petitioner is in custody since 26.08.2024. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. He submits that witnesses Soni Singh and Anuj Meena clearly supported the prosecution case. He submits that from the testimony aforesaid witnesses it has been clearly come out that petitioner along with co-accused persons abducted the victim Anuj and demanded ransom of twenty lakh rupees from his family. He submits that it is evident from the record that victim of this case was found in the custody of petitioner and he was recovered from the custody of the petitioner. He further submits that it is also evident from the record that petitioner was rightly identified by the victim in test identification parade during the course of investigation. 5. I have considered the contentions. [2025:RJ-JP:25607] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-8573/2025] 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by both the parties and testimony of witnesses namely Soni Singh and Anuj Meena, as also considering the material made available on record in the form of charge-sheet including recovery of the victim and the fact that test identification parade was conducted during the course of investigation wherein petitioner was rightly identified by the victim as well as looking to the nature and gravity of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, this second bail application stands dismissed. 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 /86