[2025:RJ-JP:42323] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 13237/2025 1. Suresh S/o Ramesh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ralayati, Police Station Sadar Jhalawar, District Jhalawar (Ra- jasthan) (At Present Confined In District Jail Jhalawar). 2. Mohan @ Mohaniya S/o Supariya, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Kalmandi Khurd, Police Station Sadar Jhalawar, Dis- trict Jhalawar (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In District Jail Jhalawar). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Singh Yaduvanshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Assistant GA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 15/10/2025 1. This second bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.133/2025 registered at Police Station Kotwali Jhalawar, District Jhalwar (Raj.) for offence punishable under Section 309(4) of BNS, 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Section 310(2) of BNS & Section 4/25 of Arms Act. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioners was dismissed by this court vide order dated 10.09.2025. Now, [2025:RJ-JP:42323] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-13237/2025] statement of the complainant has been recorded during the course of trial thus this second bail application has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that from bare perusal of testimony of the complainant reveals that a false case has been prepared by the police against the petitioners. The FIR was lodged against unknown persons, and the prosecution has failed to establish the identity of the accused. The complainant, during his deposition, did not identify the petitioners and categorically stated that the assailants were strangers to him. Despite this, at no stage of his testimony did he assert that the persons standing in the dock were the same individuals who committed the offence. It is submitted that in any criminal trial, establishing the identity of the accused is a sine qua non for securing conviction. It is further contended that the petitioners have been in judicial custody for a considerable period. It is submitted that no test identification parade was conducted during the course of investigation which stands admitted by the complainant in his cross-examination. Counsel submits that out of 13 prosecution witnesses, only three witnesses have been examined so far, therefore, there is a bleak possibility of early conclusion of the trial. Further incarceration of the petitioners will serve no fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is sufficient material available on record showing the involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offence. It is further submitted that the [2025:RJ-JP:42323] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-13237/2025] petitioners are habitual offenders, as several other cases have been registered against them. 5. I have considered the rival contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is a settled proposition of law that mere pendency of other criminal cases cannot be a sole ground for rejection of a bail application. The court must first consider the role attributed to the accused and the nature of evidence. Only upon finding prima facie strong evidence of his involvement can his bail be declined on the ground of criminal antecedents. 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, especially considering the fact that the identity of the petitioners has not been prima facie established in view of the testimony of the complainant so also considering the period of custody undergone by the petitioners; 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. 8. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners – 1) Suresh S/o Ramesh & 2) Mohan @ Mohaniya S/o Supariya, shall be released on bail provided each of them 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 they shall appear before that Court and any court [2025:RJ-JP:42323] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-13237/2025] to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 9. It is made clear that the accused-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence every week in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. 10. Concerned SHO shall enter the attendance of the petitioners in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioners fail to mark their presence in the concerned police station, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 11. If breach of any 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 them by this Court. 12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 13. 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 /62