[2025:RJ-JP:39586] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 12545/2025 Pramod Pareek S/o Prahlad Pareek, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Ramgarh, Tehsil And Police Station Mahua, District Dausa. (Presently Confined At Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Pareek For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Assistant GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 25/09/2025 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.226/2024 registered at Police Station Sadar Jaipur, District Jaipur (West) (Raj.) for offences punishable under Sections 384, 406, 416, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 & 120B of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge- sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC. 2. The first bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by this court vide order dated 28.07.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail before the learned trial court under the provisions of Section 480(6) of BNSS (corresponding to Section 437(6) of Cr.PC) however, charges have [2025:RJ-JP:39586] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-12545/2025] not been framed so far and trial has not commenced thus, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that co- accused persons namely- Shankar Lal Sharma, Bhanwar Lal Sharma and Pooja have already been granted benefit of bail by Co-ordinate bench of this Court after considering the period of incarceration. Counsel submits that case of the petitioner is also on similar footing as he is not beneficiary of the transaction. It is contended that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 21.01.2025 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 parties, especially considering the material available on record and the fact that aforementioned co-accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by Co-ordinate bench of this Court 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 [2025:RJ-JP:39586] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-12545/2025] directed that accused-petitioner - Pramod Pareek S/o Prahlad Pareek, 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 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 GAUTAM JAIN /213