[2025:RJ-JP:2594] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 14850/2024 Aakash Saini Son Of Pappu Lal Saini, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Maliyo Ki Dhani, Sarna Dungar, Police Station Kardhani, Jaipur West. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vidhut Kumar Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Manju Dave, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 20/01/2025 1. Apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No.519/2024, registered at Police Station Kardhani, Jaipur (West) for the offence(s) under Sections 143, 323 and 341 of IPC, the accused- petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. second bail application under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the first anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner was dismissed considering the report submitted by learned Public Prosecutor dated 02.09.2024 and an interim order against the accused-petitioner was passed on 09.09.2024 i.e. after filing of the factual report. In the first anticipatory bail application, the factual report was not submitted, after passing of the interim order dated 09.09.2024. Today, the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the factual report which reveals that after passing of [2025:RJ-JP:2594] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-14850/2024] the interim order dated 09.09.2024, the accused-petitioner appeared before the concerned Investigating Officer and his interrogation note was prepared. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that custodial interrogation of the accused-petitioner is not required. The injuries sustained to injured Gopal Saini, on skull was found to be simple in nature, similarly, the injuries sustained to Pinki Saini, Lali Devi and Poonam Saini were also found to be simple in nature, the case under Section 308 of the IPC is not made out against the accused- petitioner, as there is no opinion of the doctor that injuries sustained to injured Gopal Saini were dangerous to life, the injured Gopal Saini has received fracture of 6, 7 and 8 rib bone that injuries were not opined to be dangerous to life. The allegations against the accused-petitioner are omnibus in nature and not specific, the other co-accused have already been enlarged on regular bail, therefore, the second anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the second anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner. 4. Heard and perused the material available on the record. 5. Considering the fact that the first anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner was dismissed, considering the factual report which was submitted before passing of the interim order and subsequent to interim order was passed by this Court, the accused-petitioner appeared before the concerned Investigating Officer and the concerned Investigating Officer has recorded the interrogation note of the accused. Further, the injuries sustained [2025:RJ-JP:2594] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-14850/2024] to all the injured were not opined to be dangerous to life rather, were found to be simple blunt in nature, except the injuries sustained to injured Gopal Saini. The custodial interrogation of the accused-petitioner is not required, therefore, considering the above aspects, the second anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner is hereby allowed. 6. Accordingly, the second anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioner- Aakash Saini Son Of Pappu Lal Saini, in connection with FIR No.519/2024, registered at Police Station Kardhani, Jaipur (West), he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-18