[2025:RJ-JP:9041] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 2166/2025 Piyush Rathod S/o Bhupendra Rathod, R/o Opposite Of M.D. Mission College, Vinayak Residency, Keshavpura, Sector-4, Kota, Rajasthan. (At Present Accused Confined In Central Jail, Kota) ----Accused-Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Kumar Saini, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 03/03/2025 1. The instant 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.299/2023 registered at Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, District Kota City for the offences punishable under Sections 365 and 342 of IPC. Later on, Police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 302, 364A and 201 of IPC. 2. First bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording testimony of four witnesses namely- Rajaram, Kapil, sister of the deceased and Investigating Officer of this case. Now, all the aforesaid witnesses have been examined during the course of the [2025:RJ-JP:9041] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2166/2025] trial. Thus, this second bail application has been preferred by the petitioner. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that it appears from the testimony of the Investigating Officer of this case that entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that mainly petitioner was arrested in this case on the basis of CCTV footage wherein petitioner and deceased can be seen together. It is submitted that CCTV footage was played during the cross- examination of the Investigating Officer wherein, he has clearly admitted the fact that one person cannot be clearly seen in the footage and face of the other person can be seen muffled by cloth. Counsel submits that till date, only 12 witnesses have been examined out of the 28 cited prosecution witnesses. There are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. Charge-sheet has already been filed and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. He contends that petitioner who is aged about 21 years is in custody since 29.06.2023 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner however, fairly concedes that according to the testimony of the Investigating Officer persons appearing in the CCTV footage are not clearly visible. 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 [2025:RJ-JP:9041] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2166/2025] counsel for the petitioner as also looking to the material made available in the form of charge-sheet, testimony of the prosecution witnesses examined during the course of trial; absence of criminal antecedents; trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, 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 - Piyush Rathod S/o Bhupendra Rathod 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 MADAN/33