[2025:RJ-JP:7825] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 2207/2025 Asgar Khan S/o Alim Khan, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Ward No. 15, Ramgrh Shekhawati, Police Station Ramgarh Shekhawati, District Sikar At Present House No. 201, Sanjay Nagar-D, Shanti Nagar, Gulzar Masjid Ke Paas, Police Station Jhotwara, Jaipur. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma Mr. Suresh Kumar Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 20/02/2025 1. Instant Second Bail Application is preferred by petitioner- accused after dismissal of bail application on 05.02.2025 by learned Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur Metro-I, Jaipur under Section 483 of BNSS. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that while dismissing the first bail application on 14.11.2024, this Court has directed the Trial Court to ensure recording of statement of victim at earliest by use of Video Conferencing (VC) but Trial Court has not taken any steps to record statement of victim. He further submits that there is no likelihood that the Trial Court will record statement of victim in near future. He further submits that applicant is in custody for more than 10 months and he is sole bread earner of his family. [2025:RJ-JP:7825] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-2207/2025] 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 5. First Application for bail was dismissed by this Court on 14.11.2024 and while dismissing the first application for bail this Court has considered that three bail applications of accused Sameer & Tahir who were charged under Sections 170, 419, 420, 384, 120-B IPC and Section 13(1),(2) of Rajasthan Tourism Trade (Facilitation and Regulation) Act, 2010, were also dismissed. 6. A perusal of complaint clearly indicate that a tourist from Japan was subjected to extortion by a gang of local persons namely called as “lapka”. After investigation, police has filed charge-sheet against all. We have considered that there were 5 other cases against present petitioner, thus, petitioner is having a criminal background. A person like present one indulges in criminal activities and 5 cases were also registered against him is sufficient to indicate that despite charge of committing crime on previous occasion, the petitioner is continue to indulge in criminal activity. 7. On 14.11.2024, we have directed the Trial Court to ensure that statement of victim be recorded at earliest by using Video Conferencing but report dated 19.02.2025 submitted by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jaipur Metro-I, Jaipur indicate that the Presiding Officer has not recorded complete statement of a single witness till date. The proceedings clearly indicate that the Presiding Officer is not having a control over the [2025:RJ-JP:7825] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-2207/2025] proceedings and he is deliberately causing delay in the matter. Herein, it indicate that when two witnesses Mukesh and Rajesh were present on 30.01.2025, then the matter was deferred for procuring Malkhana from concerned Police Station but on 12.02.2025 Malkhana was not produced and ultimately the statement of witnesses were not recorded. 8. A perusal of aforementioned proceeding indicate that the Presiding Officer has failed to ensure that Malkhana is procured prior to summoning of witness and moreover, when witness is present before the Court then Malkhana is required to be summoned on very same day when police Station- Vidhayakpuri is just at 2 K.M. distance from the Court. 9. The Trial Court has not ensured summoning of victim/complainant. A lethargic and careless attitude was adopted by the Presiding Officer, in a case where bail application of two accused were dismissed on three occasions. 10. Having considered the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, this is not a fit case wherein indulgence of bail can be granted to the applicant, therefore, the 2nd bail application preferred by present applicant is liable to be dismissed. 11. In view of aforesaid, 2nd bail application preferred under Section 483 of BNSS is hereby dismissed. 12. A copy of this order be placed before Hon’ble The Chief Justice with comment dated 19.02.2025, for action on administrative side. [2025:RJ-JP:7825] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-2207/2025] 13. A copy of this order be also sent to concerned Presiding Officer for his reference through Registrar General of this Court. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /03