[2025:RJ-JP:40316] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 11837/2025 Nagarmal Son Of Shri Lakshman Singh, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 01, Mahariya Ka Mohalla, Kudan , Sikar (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In District Jail Sikar) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Chand Katara For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 06/10/2025 1. This second bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.55/2023 registered at Police Station Chandwaji, District Jaipur Rural (Raj.) for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 & 120B of IPC, Sections 4, 5 & 6 of The Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and Sections 3 & 21 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019. 2. The first bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 12.08.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after filing of result of investigation. Now, charge-sheet has been filed in this matter thus, this second bail application has been preferred. [2025:RJ-JP:40316] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-11837/2025] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that petitioner is not named in FIR and his custody has been obtained in this case on 11.06.2025 through production warrant as he was in custody in connection with FIR No.54/2023 wherein benefit of bail has already been granted to him by this court vide order dated 30.06.2025. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion 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 and submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as three other cases have been registered against him out of which, two cases are of similar nature. 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 both the parties, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, as also the fact that petitioner is not named in FIR 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 the second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Nagarmal Son Of Shri Lakshman Singh, 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/- [2025:RJ-JP:40316] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-11837/2025] (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. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve in similar offence(s) during currency of bail granted by this Court. The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station in first week of every month, till trial is concluded. 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, as directed above, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 10. If breach of any 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 GAUTAM JAIN /54