[2025:RJ-JP:40641] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 12683/2025 Ghanshyam @ Dhanna Valmiki So/ Omprakash, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Gopalpura, Police Station Kotputli, District Kotputli- Behror, Rajasthan. (Presently Accused Confined In Central Jail, Alwar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar & Ms. Anisha Yadav for Mr. Kapil Gupta 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 has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.279/2025 registered at Police Station Kotputli, District Kotputli-Behror for offences punishable under Sections 308(2), 326(g), 351(2) & 3(5) of 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. 2. The first bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 08.08.2025. Now, charge-sheet has been filed thus, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that other co-accused persons have already been [2025:RJ-JP:40641] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-12683/2025] granted benefit of bail by this Court as well as by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Counsel submits that petitioner was declined bail considering the fact that investigation is still going on. It is submitted that injuries sustained to injured have been opined as simple in nature. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 01.06.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as five other cases have been registered against him. 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 learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the fact that other co-accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court as well as by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, as also the fact that injuries sustained to injured have been opined as simple in nature 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 proper to allow the second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Ghanshyam @ Dhanna Valmiki So/ Omprakash, shall be released on bail provided, he shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees [2025:RJ-JP:40641] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-12683/2025] 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, till trial is concluded. 9. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioner, as directed above. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, 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 CHARU SONI /110