[2025:RJ-JP:42363] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 13431/2025 Suhail Khan@Golu S/o Firoz Khan, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Krishna Vihar Colony, Anantpura Talab Gaonv P.s. Anantpura Kota (At Present In Central Jail Kota) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shamsuddin Ansari with Mr. Kaleem Ahamed Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 16/10/2025 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.110/2025 registered at Police Station Pratapnagar (Jaipur City (East)), District Jaipur City (East) (Rajasthan) for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 127(2), 140(3), 308(5) & 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023 and Section 4/25 of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 127(2), 140(3), 308(5) & 61(2) of BNS, 2023. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 28.08.2025. Now, charge-sheet has been filed in this matter 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 co-accused Shruti Sain has already been [2025:RJ-JP:42363] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13431/2025] granted benefit of bail by learned trial Court and benefit of bail has been denied to the petitioner solely on the basis of pendency of other criminal cases against him. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since 05.06.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. Counsel prays that by imposing appropriate conditions, this application may be considered for grant of bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer of bail made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that petitioner is habitual offender as fifteen other cases have been registered against him and there is allegation against the petitioner that he gave beatings to the complainant. 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, as also the fact that after investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter 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 Suhail Khan@Golu S/o Firoz Khan 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 [2025:RJ-JP:42363] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-13431/2025] 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. Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, 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 and third week of every month in the concerned police station. 9. Concerned SHO shall record the presence 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 /9