[2025:RJ-JP:50702] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 14673/2025 Mohammadi W/o Iliyas, Resident Of Village Daila, Police Station Tijara, District Alwar (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh Sunda, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 15/12/2025 1. This second pre-arrest bail application under Section 482 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who is having apprehension of arrest in connection with FIR No.229/2021 registered at Police Station Tijara, District Bhiwari for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 307 & 302 of IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. 2. The first pre-arrest bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 23.08.2023 while giving liberty to surrender before the trial Court on or before 05.09.2023 (12:00 PM), and move a regular bail application, which shall be considered and decided by the trial Court on the very same day as per law. Now, parties have entered into compromise thus, this second pre-arrest bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:50702] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-14673/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a lady and she has falsely been implicated in this case as there is no evidence on record to connect her with the alleged crime. It is submitted that though the first application for grant of pre-arrest bail filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court with liberty to surrender before the Trial Court, the parties have thereafter entered into a compromise. On account of the said subsequent development, the petitioner has again approached this Court under Section 482 of the BNSS. Counsel further submits that considering the fact of compromise, the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court has granted regular bail to co- accused namely- Rojin Ahmed. Moreover, no specific overt-act has been assigned to the present petitioner and there is no allegation against her of causing injury. In such circumstances, no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner behind the bar. Hence, this second pre-arrest bail may be allowed. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that there is an allegation against the petitioner of committing a serious offence under Section 302 of IPC and compromise in respect of the said offence cannot be acceptable. Further, despite liberty, the petitioner did not surrender before the trial Court. Thus, this second pre-arrest bail should be dismissed. 5. I have considered the rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially [2025:RJ-JP:50702] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-14673/2025] considering the fact that when the first pre-arrest bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court, liberty was granted to the petitioner to surrender before the trial Court and move a regular bail application before it, however, the petitioner did not surrender and she has again approached this Court under Section 482 of BNSS, as well as looking to the serious allegations that have been made against the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to extend the indulgence of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner at this stage. 7. Accordingly, this second pre-arrest bail application stands dismissed. 8. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of this bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Manoj Solanki /15