[2025:RJ-JP:25989] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 8870/2025 Hanuman Prasad Meena S/o Gyarsilal Lal Meena, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Bilot, Police Station Aligarh, District Tonk, Rajasthan. Presently Suspended Junior Assistant, Land Management Officer, Bhilwara, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajveer Singh Rajawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 14/07/2025 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.60/2024 registered at Police Station Special Police Station(SOG), District ATS & SOG (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC and Section 3/4 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Use of Unfair Means), Act 1992. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC and Sections 3, 4 & 6 of Rajasthan Public Examination (Prevention of Use of Unfair Means), Act 1992. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by this court vide order dated 13.01.2025. Thereafter, [2025:RJ-JP:25989] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-8870/2025] he preferred bail application under Sections 483 of BNSS before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II however, said bail application was also dismissed vide order dated 05.07.2025 thus, this second bail application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that petitioner is facing Magistrate trial and it is obligatory for the learned trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for recording prosecution evidence. Counsel submits that said provisions are mandatory in nature and bail can only be refused on the basis of reasonable grounds. Counsel submits that no such grounds are available on record in this case. It is submitted that delay cannot be attributed to the petitioner as it is evident from the order-sheet that proceedings were deferred on number of occasions and for different reasons. It is submitted that other co-accused persons of this case namely Hastimal Meena & Roshan Kumar have already been granted benefit of bail by this court. Counsel submits that there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future. Petitioner is in custody since his date of arrest and 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 petitioner is a habitual offender as six other cases have been registered against him. 5. I have considered the contentions. [2025:RJ-JP:25989] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-8870/2025] 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the fact that alleged offences are triable by magistrate, material made available on record, as also considering the fact that petitioner is in custody since his date of arrest and there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future, 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- Hanuman Prasad Meena S/o Gyarsilal Lal Meena 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. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court. The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station in first week of every month, 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 [2025:RJ-JP:25989] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-8870/2025] station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 10. If breach of any 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 petitioner 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 GAUTAM JAIN /31