[2025:RJ-JP:31984] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 9853/2025 Sanjay Kumar S/o Ramlakhan, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Badh Nayawas, P.S. Gadhmora, District Gangapur City. (At Present Confined In District Jail Gangapur City). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun, Adv., with Mr. Anurag Chahar, PP For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 14/08/2025 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.150/2023 registered at Police Station Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 34, 365, 364 and 201 of IPC. 2. The first bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by this court vide order dated 10.09.2024. Now, 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. It is [2025:RJ-JP:31984] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-9853/2025] submitted that earlier bail application of the petitioner was rejected by this court on the basis of recovery of knife at the instance of the petitioner. It is submitted that alleged incident took place on 20.04.2023 and knife has been recovered on 29.04.2023. Counsel submits that police personnel who made the recovery has been examined during the course of trial wherein it has been stated by him that in pursuance of information furnished by the accused-petitioner under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, they went to recover the knife on 28.04.2023. It is submitted that in view of statement made by police personnel it appears that recovery of knife at the instance of the petitioner is tainted. He further contends that entire case is based on circumstantial evidence as there is no eye-witness of the instant case. He contends that other co-accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court. Counsel relies upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court on 22.07.2025 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).6087/2025 titled as Vishal vs. The State of Haryana, wherein, almost identical circumstances, bail has been granted to the accused. It is submitted that there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future as till date, only 12 witnesses have been examined out of 38 cited prosecution witnesses. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 25.04.2023 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have considered the contentions. [2025:RJ-JP:31984] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-9853/2025] 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 material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, as also considering the fact that till date, only 12 witnesses have been examined out of 38 cited prosecution witnesses, other co-accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody which is more than two years, 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 - Sanjay Kumar S/o Ramlakhan 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 are 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/S-305