[2025:RJ-JP:40746] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 12772/2025 Rahul S/o Shri Gopal Singh, R/o Summera Ka Adda, Mangrole Road, Maniya, Police Station Maniya, District Dholpur (Presently Confined In District Jail, Dholpur). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg Mr. A.S. Rathore Mr. Satyam Upman For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 07/10/2025 1. This second bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.354/2023 registered at Police Station Maniya, District Dholpur (Raj.) for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 & 120-B of IPC. After completion of investigation, police has filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. First bail application (No.10331/2024) filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 27.01.2025 while giving liberty to the petitioner to renew the prayer of bail after recording testimony of complainant/first informant, Investigating Officer, Ankush Jain and Vinod. Now, all these witnesses have been examined during the course of trial, thus this second bail application has been preferred. [2025:RJ-JP:40746] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-12772/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He argues that from the testimony of the aforesaid witnesses, it is clear that no offence is made out. It is submitted that petitioner is not named in FIR. The complainant has improved his version during the course of trial and entangled the petitioner as he clearly admitted the fact that he neither named the petitioner in the FIR nor in his statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. Counsel further submits that from the testimony of the Investigating Officer it reveals that the petitioner has been made accused in this case on the basis of the statements of Ankush Jain and Vinod but both these witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. It is also contended that the maximum allegation against the petitioner is that he did reiki of the deceased and inform the co-accused person and this allegation is also based on his extra-judicial confession made by him before PW-02 (Vinod) who has not supported the prosecution case. Counsel argues that admittedly, the petitioner was not present at the place of alleged incident. Petitioner is in custody since 21.09.2023 and there are no criminal antecedents against him. Trial will take considerable time in its conclusion and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the 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 both the [2025:RJ-JP:40746] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-12772/2025] parties and the fact that PW-02 (Vinod) and PW-05 (Ankush Jain) have not supported the prosecution case and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion; absence of criminal antecedents as well as looking to the custody period of the petitioner, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Rahul S/o Shri Gopal Singh, 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. 8. The observations made hereinabove 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 GAUTAM JAIN /50