[2025:RJ-JP:40591] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 10059/2025 Dinesh Choudhary @ Bhanu S/o Ramrukh Choudhary, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ramner Dhani, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, District Ajmer. (At Present In Central Jail, Ajmer). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. A.K. Gupta, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Rinesh Gupta & Mr. Sarwat Alam For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 07/10/2025 1. This second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.178/2024 registered at Police Station Roopangarh, District Ajmer (Rajasthan) for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 111(2)(a), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 308(4), 326(f) & 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023 and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 109(1), 115(2), 126(2), 111(2)(a), 190, 191(2), 191(3), 308(4), 326(f), 61(2)(a), [2025:RJ-JP:40591] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-10059/2025] 189(2), 189(4) & 324(4) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. 2. Vide order dated 19.03.2025, first bail application (No.3455/2025) filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of eye-witnesses namely- Jeveen Khan @ Kalu Khan, Imran S/o Abdul Hamid, Abdul Firoz S/o Abdul Khan, Imran S/o Umar Khan and Narayan Lal S/o Nanu Ram (injured). Now, aforesaid witnesses have been examined during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that aforesaid witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile. Counsel submits that in these circumstances, there is no evidence against the petitioner to connect him with the alleged crime. Counsel submits that pistol which was allegedly used in the commission of crime was recovered at the instance of co-accused namely- Rajveer Singh @ Fouji. Counsel submits that said co-accused has already been granted benefit of bail by this Court. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 06.10.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as six other cases have been registered against him. [2025:RJ-JP:40591] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-10059/2025] 5. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. It is true that criminal antecedents of the accused are one of the relevant consideration for deciding the bail application but same cannot be the sole ground to deny the bail. In the present case, all eye-witnesses including injured- Narayan Lal have been declared hostile and they have not uttered a single word against the petitioner and considering the fact that petitioner has been in jail since 06.10.2024, this Court is of the opinion that the present bail application deserves to be allowed. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner -Dinesh Choudhary @ Bhanu S/o Ramrukh Choudhary 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. 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 police station. 9. Concerned SHO shall enter the attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his [2025:RJ-JP:40591] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-10059/2025] presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 10. If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court. 11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 12. The observations made hereinabove 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 LALIT MOHAN /39