[2025:RJ-JP:27374] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 8755/2025 Kanhaiyalal @ Raju Topi S/o Shri Devilal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Pawan Ki Gali, Karni Nagar, P.s. Nanta, Kota City (At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Kumar Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 22/07/2025 1. The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.220/2024 registered at Police Station Nanta, District Kota for the offence(s) under Sections 109(1), 115(2), 126(2) of BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that PW-5 Ajay in his cross-examination has stated that he has given statements at the instance of injured Vinod. Further he has also stated that his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was given according to the version stated by the police officials. It is also contended that presence of PW-5 Ajay at the place of occurrence is also disputed and [2025:RJ-JP:27374] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-8755/2025] prosecution has failed to submit a reasonable explanation about the presence of PW-5 at the place of occurrence. It is further argued that PW-3 Vinod, who is main injured in his cross- examination has stated that after two and a half hour of occurrence injured was taken to the hospital by Sunil and Ajay this fact itself shows that PW-5 Ajay was not present when the alleged incident took place. It is also contended that due to animosity, the petitioner has been falsely implicated and complainant, other injured have not admitted to causing injury by the accused. It is argued that injuries received by the injured cannot be attributed to petitioner. The accused-petitioner is in custody since 14.10.2024. It is also contended that order sheets also reveal that witnesses are not turning up before the trial court, therefore on the ground of inconsistency in the statement of witnesses and probable delay in trial, the second bail application of the accused- petitioner may be allowed. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application and contended that first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed considering the merits and trial of the case has proceeded and recorded the statement of seven witnesses out of 15 cited witnesses. The allegation against the petitioner are grave, it is alleged against the petitioner that he with the aid of knife caused injuries to injured resulting into injuries at the abdomen and other body parts. Injuries sustained to injured were dangerous to life as per the medical jurist PW-2 and the petitioner was also operated for the injuries caused at his abdomen, [2025:RJ-JP:27374] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-8755/2025] therefore the second bail application of petitioner deserves to be dismissed. Heard and perused the material available on the record. The first bail application of petitioner was dismissed after considering the merits of the case and after dismissal of first bail application, the trial has been proceeded and prosecution has examined seven witnesses out of 15 cited witnesses. It is not desirable to express anything on the veracity of the statement given by the eye witness PW-5 Ajay, considering the above facts, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the present second criminal misc. bail application is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J ashu /6