[2025:RJ-JP:44692] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Third Bail Application No. 13944/2025 Sarjeet S/o Shri Sumer, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Muradpur, Police Station Singhana, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (At Present In Sub Jail Khetri, Jhunjhunu). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gajanand Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 07/11/2025 1. This third bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.238/2023 registered at Police Station Singhana, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) for offences punishable under Sections 307 & 34 of IPC and Section 27 of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 307, 397 & 34 of IPC and Sections 3/25, 5/27 & 35 of Arms Act. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by this court vide order dated 12.07.2024. Thereafter, second bail application was filed on behalf of the petitioner however, same was also dismissed by this court vide order dated 23.05.2025. Now, this third bail application has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that on earlier occasions, bail applications filed by the petitioner were [2025:RJ-JP:44692] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13944/2025] dismissed after considering the nature of allegation as well as the fact that another FIR No.137/2021 has been registered against the petitioner at Police Station Singhana, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, involving offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Counsel submits that now, vide judgment dated 19.08.2025, petitioner has been acquitted in that case. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. It is contended that petitioner is in custody since 03.09.2023 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of causing gunshot injury on the chest of the injured. 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 considering the fact that petitioner is in custody since 03.09.2023, as also considering the fact that vide judgment dated 19.08.2025, petitioner has been acquitted in FIR No.137/2021 registered at Police Station Singhana, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan involving offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow the third bail application. 7. This third bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Sarjeet S/o Shri Sumer shall [2025:RJ-JP:44692] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-13944/2025] 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. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station. 9. Concerned SHO shall enter the attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 10. If any breach 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 him by this Court. 11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 12. 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 /21