[2025:RJ-JP:49266] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 15941/2025 Azad S/o Deenu @ Deena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Vikti, P.s. Bichhor, District Nuh Mewat (Haryana) (At Present Confined In Sub Jail- Deeg). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Umashanker Pandey For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 04/12/2025 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.164/2024 registered at Police Station Jurhera, District Deeg (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 307 & 34 of IPC & Sections 3/25(1)(a) & 3/25(6) of Arms Act, 1959 (Amendment 2019). After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 08.01.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording the testimony of the injured as well as medical expert who prepared the MLC of the injured. Now, both witnesses have been examined during the course of trial, 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 as from [2025:RJ-JP:49266] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-15941/2025] the testimony of the aforementioned witnesses it appears that the entire case has been concocted against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner was arrested on 02.05.2024, and on the very next day, a country-made pistol was recovered at his instance. This is contrary to the testimony of the injured, which states that the petitioner was caught at the spot along with a country-made pistol and cartridge, which was thereafter recovered by the Police. It is submitted that no record of hospital is available on record showing that on 02.05.2024 injured was admitted in CSC Jurhera. It is submitted that the injured was medically examined on 07.05.2024 and according to the medical expert, injury sustained to injured is not dangerous to life. 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 learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that there is specific allegation against the petitioner of causing firearm injury on the person of the injured. Besides, the allegations of causing firearm injury, the petitioner is a hard-core criminal, as 16 other criminal cases have been registered against him. 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 was caught at the spot along with a country-made pistol which does not seems to be reliable and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period which is more than one and a half year, [2025:RJ-JP:49266] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-15941/2025] 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 Azad S/o Deenu @ Deena shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- each, out of which one must be given by his family member or close relative duly verified by the concerned Revenue Officer, 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 the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first & third week of every month in the concerned police station, till conclusion of the trial. 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. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:49266] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-15941/2025] 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 /14