[2025:RJ-JP:46389] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 14976/2025 Arjun S/o Balmukund, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Padasliya, Police Station Sultanpur, District Kota Rural (Raj.) (At Present Petitioner Is Confined In Central Jail Kota). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 18/11/2025 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.126/2024 registered at Police Station Sultanpur, District Kota Rural (Rajasthan) for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 308 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 and 302 of IPC. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 05.08.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of witnesses namely- Raghuveer, Chanderkala, Raju @ Rajender, Ramdev, Gaura and Arvind. Now, aforesaid witnesses [2025:RJ-JP:46389] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-14976/2025] have been examined during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that all the aforementioned witnesses have been examined during the course of trial. It is submitted that except for the witness namely- Arvind, all the aforementioned witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, and they have been declared hostile. Counsel submits that it has been admitted by the witness namely- Arvind that he is not an eye-witness of the incident. It is submitted 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 23.06.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail made by learned counsel for the petitioner however, he fairly concedes that, except for the witness namely- Arvind, all the aforementioned witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, and they have been declared hostile. 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 parties, especially considering the fact that most of the witnesses have been declared hostile, as also the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to [2025:RJ-JP:46389] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-14976/2025] the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow the second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Arjun S/o Balmukund 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 LALIT MOHAN /18