[2025:RJ-JP:35403] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 10957/2025 Mukesh Rathore S/o Dhannalal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Near Hanuman Mandir, Ghana Chowk, Sunel, Police Station Sunel, District Jhalawar (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In District Jail Jhalawar). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Singh Yaduvanshi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 03/09/2025 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.69/2025 registered at Police Station Sunel, District Jhalawar for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 126(2) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 28.07.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after filing of result of investigation. Now, charge-sheet has been filed in this matter 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. It is submitted that initially, injuries sustained to the injured persons [2025:RJ-JP:35403] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-10957/2025] was opined as grievous in nature however, later on, without any new material, same have been opined as dangerous to life. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 07.05.2025 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. He submits that there are two injured persons in this case and both have sustained injuries which have been opined as dangerous to life and same has been attributed to the present petitioner. 5. I have considered the contentions. 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 injuries sustained to the injured persons have been opined as dangerous to life and same has been attributed to the present petitioner, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, this second bail application stands dismissed. 8. The observations made herein above are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/127