[2025:RJ-JP:21342] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 2551/2025 Devi Singh S/o Madan Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Bhagwatipura, Police Station Mishroli, District Jhalawar (Raj.). (At Present Confined At Sub District Jail Bhawani Mandi District Jhalawar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sameer Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 21/05/2025 1. This 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.52/2022 registered at Police Station Mishroli, District Jhalawar (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307 & 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 307, 302 & 435 of IPC and Sections 3/25 & 4/25 of Arms Act, 1959 (Amendment 2019). 2. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 31.08.2023 while giving liberty to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail after recording the testimony of material witnesses. Now, some of the material [2025:RJ-JP:21342] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2551/2025] 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. Counsel submits that two material witnesses namely- Suresh Yogi and Bharat Singh have been examined during the course of trial as PW-9 & PW-10, respectively, wherein they have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. It is submitted that petitioner has suffered incarceration of about three years as he is in custody since 09.05.2022 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application. He submits that witness namely- Gopal Singh who was present at the place of incident has clearly stated that petitioner caused firearm injury on the person of the deceased and according to the post-mortem report, cause of death is firearm injury. He further submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as apart from this, eight other cases have been registered against him. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been acquitted in three cases. 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 role attributed to the petitioner, material made available on record in the form of charge-sheet including testimony of the witnesses recorded so far, as also [2025:RJ-JP:21342] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2551/2025] considering the fact that according to the post-mortem report, cause of death is firearm injury and petitioner is a habitual offender thus, looking to the nature and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, this second bail application stands dismissed. 8. The observations made hereinabove 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 LALIT MOHAN /76