[2025:RJ-JP:40990] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 13142/2025 Mukesh Kumar S/o Ramsingh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Madan- puriya Police Station Ghatoli District Jhalawar (Raj) (At Present Confined In Sub District Jail Aklera District Jhalawar (Raj) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 09/10/2025 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.129/2025 registered at Police Station Bhalta, District Jhalalwar (Rajasthan) for the offences punishable under Sections 331(7), 305(a), 109(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 331(7), 311, 115(2), 118(1) & 109(1) of BNS, 2023. 2. Vide order dated 03.09.2025, first bail application (No.11178/2025) filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after submission of result of investigation. Now, charge-sheet has been filed in this matter 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. [2025:RJ-JP:40990] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13142/2025] Learned counsel submits that petitioner has been made accused in this case solely on the basis of police interrogation of the co- accused. He argues that no test identification parade has been conducted with regard to the petitioner. He further argues that offence under Section 109(2) of BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 307 of IPC) is not made out and all the injuries are simple in nature. It is submitted that trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since 26.04.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner is habitual offender as seven 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 petitioner, especially the fact that no test identification parade has been conducted with regard to the petitioner; 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 this second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner -Mukesh Kumar S/o Ramsingh shall be released on bail provided, he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together [2025:RJ-JP:40990] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-13142/2025] 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 record the presence of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his 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 /87