[2025:RJ-JP:49980] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 15089/2025 Sonu S/o Late Shri Lakhan Singh, R/o Bhure Ka Pura Thana Langra District Karauli Rajasthan. (At Present Confined At District Jail Karauli). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Rahim Khan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP & Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP and Mr. Arvind Sharma, Adv., for complainant. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 09/12/2025 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.73/2023 registered at Police Station Langra, District Karauli (Raj.) for offences punishable under Sections 143 and 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 147, 302, 364 and 120B of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after rejection of the first bail application, some more witnesses have been examined during the course of the trial. Thus, this second bail application has been preferred. [2025:RJ-JP:49980] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-15089/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner is neither named in the FIR nor he was named in the initial statement of the complainant which was recorded under Section 180 of BNSS (corresponding to Section 161 Cr.P.C.). Counsel argues that now, in the light of the testimony of the police personnel, it appears that phone location of the petitioner was also not collected during the course of trial. Counsel further argues that it appears from bare perusal of the charge-sheet that the petitioner has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of disclosure made by co-accused persons. It is submitted that no recovery has been made at the instance of the petitioner. It is contended that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as two other accused persons have been arrested in this case and therefore, de novo trial is being conducted. Counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 27.02.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that there is no substantial change in the circumstances after rejection of the first bail application. 5. I have considered the contentions. Perused the material available on record. [2025:RJ-JP:49980] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-15089/2025] 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet including testimony of the witnesses recorded so far, as also the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner, so also the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 27.02.2024 and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion, 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 - Sonu S/o Late Shri Lakhan Singh, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- 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 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/15