[2025:RJ-JP:21128] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 1698/2025 Vivek S/o Ramjilal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Teela No. 3, Jawahar Nagar Ps Jawahar Nagar, District Jaipur, (Raj.) (Accused Petitioner Is In Judicial Custody In Sub Jail Gangapur City). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 20/05/2025 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.226/2023 registered at Police Station Udai Mod, District Gangapur City (Raj.) for offences punishable under Sections 302, 394, 458, 143, 323, 341 & 506 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 396, 460, 147, 148, 149, 323, 341 & 506 of IPC. 2. The first bail application was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 28.11.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that after dismissal of first bail application of the petitioner, some material witnesses have been examined and it appears from their [2025:RJ-JP:21128] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1698/2025] testimony that petitioner was not armed with sharp-edged weapon. He submits that as per the post-mortem report, cause of death is sharp injuries. It is submitted that complainant/informant himself has admitted the fact that petitioner was armed with the lathi. It is submitted that till date only 8 witnesses have been examined out of 23 cited prosecution witnesses and thus trial of the case is likely to take considerable time. As per impugned order dated 04.01.2024 passed by learned trial court while dismissing the bail application of the petitioner, there are no criminal antecedents against him. Petitioner is in custody since 14.09.2023 and as such he has served incarceration of almost one year eight months. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He submits that it is evident from the charge-sheet as well as testimony of prosecution witnesses that petitioner was present at the place of incident and he was armed with lathi, therefore, it is a clear case of Section 149 of IPC. 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, as also considering the material made available on record in the form of charge-sheet, testimony of material witnesses including complainant recorded during the course of the trial and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion; looking to the role attributed to the petitioner as well as his custody period, but [2025:RJ-JP:21128] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1698/2025] 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 - Vivek S/o Ramjilal, 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 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. The observations made herein above is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /28