[2025:RJ-JP:50733] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 13962/2025 Himmat Singh S/o Shri Magan Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Motlawas, Police Station And Tehsil Dantaramgarh District Sikar, At Present Plot No. 99, Jai Hind Colony, Pachora Road, Badgaon, Police Station Badgaon, District Jalgoan, Maharashtra (Presently Confined In District Jail Sikar). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt. G.A. Mr. Pranav Pareek, for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 16/12/2025 1. The 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.48/2024 registered at Police Station Dantaramgarh, District Sikar for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 302, 307 & 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 302, 325 & 34 of IPC. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 28.07.2025 with liberty to renew the prayer of bail in changed circumstances. Hence, this second bail application has been filed. [2025:RJ-JP:50733] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13962/2025] 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel contends that alleged incident took place in the spur of moment and there was no intention of the petitioner to cause fatal injury on the person of deceased. It is contended that even if the prosecution story is accepted on its face value, the case of petitioner may fall under the exceptions of Section 300 of IPC. Learned counsel submits that it is a case of sole injury. It is submitted that other co-accused persons have been granted benefit of bail by this Court. Learned counsel argues that charge- sheet has been filed and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as till date, 20 witnesses have been examined and 8 more witnesses are to be examined yet. It is argued that petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he is in custody since 06.02.2024, thus, 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 petitioner is the main accused of this case. There is specific allegation against him to cause head injury on the person of deceased and as per post-mortem report, same is cause of death of deceased. 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 as well as material available on record in the form of [2025:RJ-JP:50733] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-13962/2025] charge-sheet, especially the facts that it is a case of sole injury; there is no allegation of repetition of injury against the petitioner so also considering the fact that other co-accused persons have been granted benefit of bail by this Court; petitioner has no criminal antecedents; 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 - Himmat Singh S/o Shri Magan Singh, shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty 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 CHARU SONI /11