[2025:RJ-JP:5969] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 15994/2024 Bharat Meena S/o Rajkumar Meena, R/o Saraswati Colony, Gali No. 16, Roteda Road, Police Station Railway Colony, Kota (Raj.) (Presently Confined At Central Jail Kota). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Balaut For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 11/02/2025 1. The instant 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.262/2023 registered at Police Station Railway Colony, District Kota City (Rajasthan) for the offences punishable under Sections 327, 384, 323, 341 & 34 of IPC. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the same offences. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that on an earlier occasion, bail was granted to the petitioner by this Court vide order dated 21.08.2023 and while giving the benefit of bail condition was imposed on the petitioner that he shall not involve in any other similar offence(s) during currency of bail. It is [2025:RJ-JP:5969] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-15994/2024] submitted that on 25.08.2023 FIR No. 291/2023 was registered by the same complainant against the petitioner at Police Station Railway Colony, District Kota City (Rajasthan) alleging therein that petitioner alongwith other persons have beaten him up. It is submitted that during the course of investigation in the aforesaid FIR, petitioner was arrested and subsequently, charge-sheet was filed against him. It is submitted that due to another FIR being registered against the petitioner during currency of bail, an application for cancellation of bail was preferred by the complainant and vide order dated 26.02.2024 same was cancelled. In pursuance of cancellation of bail, petitioner surrendered himself before the learned trial Court on 06.06.2024 and since then he is in judicial custody. It is submitted that facility of bail was granted to the petitioner in connection with FIR no. 291/2023 by co-ordinate bench of this court observing therein that entire incident is captured in CCTV footage and presence of petitioner cannot be established in the said footage. It was further observed that petitioner has been named in the said FIR only with an intention to seek cancellation of bail granted to him by this court. Counsel submits that complainant has also been examined and it appears from his testimony that petitioner was not involved in the alleged subsequent incident. Counsel thus, prays that in these circumstances, further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that charge-sheet has already been filed against the petitioner therefore, his involvement [2025:RJ-JP:5969] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-15994/2024] has been well established in the case and as such he has broken the condition imposed on him by this court. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially the fact that facility of bail has been granted to the petitioner in other case by co-ordinate bench of this court; presence of petitioner cannot be established in the CCTV footage, so also considering the fact that complainant has also been examined during the course of trial and it appears from his testimony that petitioner was not involved in the alleged incident; charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this bail application. 6. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Bharat Meena S/o Rajkumar Meena 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. 7. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned [2025:RJ-JP:5969] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-15994/2024] police station. 8. If breach of any of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, same shall alone be a reason for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court. 9. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 10. The observation made herein above is 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 LALIT MOHAN /275