[2025:RJ-JP:50445] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 14716/2025 Manraj S/o Kastura, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Devariya, Police Station Dei, District Bundi (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In District Jail Bundi). ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Mishra, Adv., with Mr. Deepak Kumar Yogi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 15/12/2025 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.125/2025 registered at Police Station Nainwa, District Bundi (Rajasthan) for offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190 and 109(1) of BNS, 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109(1) & 103(1) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 4/25 of Arms Act. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 10.09.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of material witnesses. Now, material witnesses have [2025:RJ-JP:50445] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-14716/2025] 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 further submits that till date, only 11 witnesses have been examined out of total 70 cited prosecution witnesses. Counsel argues that out of 11 witnesses, 8 witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile. Counsel further argues that in remaining three witnesses, one is the formal witness and rest two witnesses have admitted in their cross-examination that they are not eye-witnesses of the incident. Counsel contends that other co-accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court while observing that the deceased forcefully entered into the marriage ceremony and started misbehaving with the women present there and therefore, people threw him out of the marriage ceremony but after sometime the deceased returned with some other people with weapons like swords, which led to a dispute and a scuffle broke out there between both the parties and one person stabbed the deceased resulting in his death. Counsel further contends that under such circumstances, an unintentional accident took place for which the deceased was also responsible to some extent. It is submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel further submits that petitioner is in custody since 01.05.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. [2025:RJ-JP:50445] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-14716/2025] 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail made by learned 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 learned counsel for the petitioner, especially the fact that eight material witnesses have been declared hostile and two witnesses have admitted that fact that they are not eye-witnesses of the incident; absence of criminal antecedents and trial will take considerable 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 fit and proper to allow the second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Manraj S/o Kastura 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 MADAN/16