[2025:RJ-JP:34623] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 11007/2025 Ganesh S/o Seetaram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Devta, Ps Bonli, Dist. Sawai Madhopur. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anirudh Tyagi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP, Mr. Saurabh Vaishnav for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 29/08/2025 1. Apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No. 45/2024 registered at Police Station Malarana Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur for the offence(s) under Sections 363 and 365 of IPC, the accused-petitioner has preferred this second anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of BNSS. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the second anticipatory bail application is filed on the grounds that after the passing of the order of dismissal on 01.04.2025, the petitioner and the complainant have entered into compromise. Therefore, on the ground of compromise entered between the parties the second anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the second anticipatory bail application and contended that the first anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner was [2025:RJ-JP:34623] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-11007/2025] dismissed by this Court on 01.04.2025, with the direction to surrender before the concerned Court, however, the petitioner did not surrender before the concerned Court. The offences alleged against the petitioner are for the offence under Sections 363, 365, 364-A, 384, 394, 342 and 120-B of IPC. The petitioner remained absent and against him, standing warrant was issued. The petitioner is a habitual offender and the offence under Section 364-A is not compoundable. The conduct of the petitioner dis- entitle him to grant any leverage, therefore, the anticipatory second bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant concedes that the petitioner and the complainant have arrived at compromise. 5. Heard and perused the material available on record. 6. The conduct of the petitioner dis-entitle him to grant any leverage from the Court. The first anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was dismissed with the direction that he would surrender before the concerned Court, however, the petitioner did not surrender, further, petitioner remained absent and warrant under Section 37 of the Police Act was obtained and subsequently, he was declared as absconder and standing warrant was issued against him, therefore, considering the above facts, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on anticipatory bail. 7. Hence, the second anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/9