[2025:RJ-JP:42175] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 13306/2025 Bhawani Shankar @ Bhanu S/o Late Shri Govindram, Aged About 66 Years, R/o Ganesham Apartment, Flat No. 202, Badarwas, Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj.). (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Navin Kumar Yadav For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst. G.A. Mr. Gopal Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 15/10/2025 1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.226/2024 registered at Police Station Sadar Jaipur, District Jaipur (West) for offences punishable under Sections 384, 406, 416, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120B of IPC. 2. The first bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by this court vide order dated 28.07.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail before learned trial court under Section 480(6) of BNSS (Corresponding to Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C.). However, charges have not been framed so far and trial [2025:RJ-JP:42175] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-13306/2025] has not commenced thus, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed on the premise that similarly situated co-accused persons, namely- Pooja, Shankar Lal Sharma, Bhanwar Lal Sharma and Ramavtar have been denied benefit of bail by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court. It is submitted that now, co-accused persons namely- Pooja, Shankar Lal Sharma and Bhanwar Lal Sharma have been granted benefit of bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and thereafter, other co-accused persons namely- Sunil Kumar and Pramod Pareek have been granted benefit of bail by this Court. Learned counsel contends that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate. It is contended that there is only one criminal antecedent against the petitioner wherein he is on bail. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 12.02.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner is the key person who executed an agreement with the complainant and issued a cheque of Rs.1,10,00,000/- in favour of the complainant and same has been dishonored. It is admitted fact [2025:RJ-JP:42175] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-13306/2025] that no complaint has been lodged against the petitioner for offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act. 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, especially considering the fact that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate, as also considering the fact that co-accused persons have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court as well as by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow this second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Bhawani Shankar @ Bhanu S/o Late Shri Govindram, shall be released on bail provided, he shall furnish 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 the first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded. [2025:RJ-JP:42175] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-13306/2025] 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. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 11. 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. 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 CHARU SONI /64