[2025:RJ-JP:47214] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 11521/2025 Ram Charan @ Charanjeet @ Charan @ Charna @ Chiranji Bagariya S/o Norat Bagariya, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Pinanch, Police Station Phagi, District Jaipur Rural. (Presently Languishing In District Jail, Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yenu Satyan, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Kumar, for Mr. Jai Kishan Yogi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. NS Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 21/11/2025 1. The instant second application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner herein who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.344/2025 registered at Police Station Shyam Nagar, District Jaipur City (South) for offences punishable under Sections 304(2), 110 & 3(5) of BNS. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the first bail application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 12.08.2025 with liberty to renew the prayer for bail after filing of result of investigation. Counsel submits that now charge-sheet has been filed. Thus, this second bail application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:47214] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-11521/2025] 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case as there is no evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. Counsel submits that FIR was filed against unknown person and at the time of arrest, no evidence was available with the Investigating Officer to make the arrest of the petitioner. Counsel further contents that none of the witnesses has identified the petitioner and he has been made accused in this case by the Investigating Agency simply on the basis of his criminal antecedents. Counsel submits that now the victim in this case has been examined and she has also stated that unknown person committed offence with her. Further, no test identification parade was conducted by the Investigating Agency during the course of investigation. Counsel submits that trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion and the petitioner is in custody since 27.06.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender as eleven other cases of theft have been registered against him and in the alleged incident, the victim has sustained grievous injuries. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet; the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency; trial will take time in its conclusion and [2025:RJ-JP:47214] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-11521/2025] 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 this second bail application. 7. Accordingly, this second bail application is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Ram Charan @ Charanjeet @ Charan @ Charna @ Chiranji Bagariya S/o Norat Bagariya shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty 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 accused- petitioner, it is made clear that he 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, till conclusion of the trial. It is further directed that petitioner shall share his mobile number (in use) to the trial Court and Investigating Agency and he shall keep his mobile phone in active mode and he shall not switch off his mobile phone intentionally for longer period. 9. Concerned SHO shall enter 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. [2025:RJ-JP:47214] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-11521/2025] 10. If any breach of these conditions is reported or comes 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 Manoj Solanki/86