[2025:RJ-JP:40852] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 13134/2025 1. Lokesh Prajapt S/o Shri Suresh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Mathaur, Police Station Khairthal, District Khairthal-Tijara (Rajasthan). 2. Pawan Choudhary S/o Shri Dilipsingh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Nangli Ojha, Police Station Tatarpur, District Khairthal- Tijara (Rajasthan) (Both are Present Confined In Central Jail, Alwar). ----Accused-Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Ola, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 08/10/2025 1. The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.139/2025 registered at Police Station Tatarpur, District Khairthal-Tijara for the offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3) & 109(1) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3/25 of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that first bail application of the petitioners was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after submission of result of investigation. Now, charge-sheet has been filed. Thus, this second bail application has been preferred by the petitioners. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. [2025:RJ-JP:40852] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13134/2025] Learned counsel submits that two injuries have been found on the person of the injured out of which one injury is grievous in nature, which is allegedly caused by firearm. He further submits that medical report of the injured would reveal that firearm injury has been mentioned only on the basis of police report. He argues that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner Lokesh Prajapat and there is one criminal antecedent for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 342, 341, 382 & 506 of IPC against the petitioner Pawan Chaudhary, wherein he is on bail. He further argues that charge-sheet has already been filed and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. He contends that petitioners are in custody since 30.06.2025 and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 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 petitioners, especially the fact that charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, 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-petitioners – 1. Lokesh Prajapt S/o Shri Suresh and 2. Pawan Choudhary S/o Shri Dilipsingh shall be released on bail provided, each of them furnishes a personal bond [2025:RJ-JP:40852] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-13134/2025] 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 they 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-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence once in every three months in the concerned police station. 9. Concerned SHO shall enter the attendance of the petitioners in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioners fail to mark their 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 them 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 MADAN/S-101