[2025:RJ-JP:247] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 14045/2024 Dilawar S/o Hamid, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Tayra, Police Thana Kaman, Distt. Deeg, Rajasthan. (Presently Confined At District Jail, Bharatpur, Since 27/05/2024) ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 13660/2024 Kabir S/o Harun, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Nangla Kulwana, Police Station Kaman, District Deeg (Raj.) (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail Deeg). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sankalp Sogani with Mr. Anuj Rohila & Mr. Umang Jain on behalf of Mr. Rajeev Surana, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Aarti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 03/01/2025 1. These second bail applications have been filed by the accused-petitioners under Section 483 B.N.S.S., in connection with F.I.R. No.302/2024 registered at Police Station Kaman, District Deeg for the offences punishable under Sections 224, 332, 353, 307 & 34 of IPC and Section 3/25(1AB) of the Arms Act. [2025:RJ-JP:247] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-14045/2024] 2. The first bail applications bearing No.7024/2024 (Dilwar S/o Hamid) & 6995/2024 (Kabir S/o Harun) were dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 05.09.2024 with liberty to file fresh bail applications after examination of the prosecution witnesses Manish Gupta, Kaptaan & also the Investigating Officer. 3. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that all the three prosecution witnesses have been examined before the trial Court and the accused-petitioners are in custody since 27.05.2024. Counsels further submit that the allegations leveled against the accused-petitioners is of using fire-arm, however, no injury of firearm has been sustained by the complainant party. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed these second bail applications and submits that the accused-petitioners after snatching the firearm of police personnel, used it. However, they were lucky as they did not sustain any injury. 5. Considered the submissions made at Bar and also perused the challan papers as well as the statements of the prosecution witnesses examined before the learned trial Court so far. 6. The first bail application was dismissed with liberty to file fresh bail application after examination of the three material prosecution witnesses with a view that in case their applicants are released on bail, they may not tamper with the material witnesses and now the material prosecution witnesses have already been examined. 7. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly the fact that the accused- petitioners are in custody since 27.05.2024 and no injury has been inflicted to the complainant party, this Court without [2025:RJ-JP:247] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-14045/2024] expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 8. These second bail applications are, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners shall be released on bail provided each of them shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that they shall appear before that Court or any other Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 9. The Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in connected case file. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J DIVYA SAINI /22-23