[2025:RJ-JP:13319] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 3050/2025 1. Narendra Singh S/o Chandra Prakash, 2. Harendra Singh S/o Chandra Prakash, All R/o Plot No. 2035 Gali No. 57 C Block Sant Nagar Burhadi North, Delhi (India). (Presently In Sub Central Jail Bundi (Raj.) ----Accused-Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jaswant Singh Rathore, Adv., with Mr. Yuvraj Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Dhakad, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 25/03/2025 1. The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.254/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali Bundi, District Bundi for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC. Later on, Police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that first bail application of the petitioners was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh bail application before learned trial Court under the provisions of Section 480(6) of BNSS (Corresponding to Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C.). He further submits that under the provisions of Section 480 of BNSS application was submitted by [2025:RJ-JP:13319] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3050/2025] the petitioner, but said application was dismissed by the trial Magistrate vide order dated 28.02.225. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the application under Section 483 of BNSS before the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Bundi, but said application was also dismissed vide order dated 06.03.2025. Now, petitioner approached this Court. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 05.07.2024 and charge-sheet was filed in this matter in the month of September, 2024. Charges were framed for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of IPC and first date for recording the prosecution witnesses was fixed as 24.12.2024. Thereafter, for continuous six dates, no prosecution witnesses appeared before the trial Court and now period of 60 days from the first date fixed for recording prosecution witnesses have already lapsed and till date, no prosecution witness has been examined. He argues that provisions of Section 480(6) of BNSS are mandatory in nature and there is very little discretion available with trial Magistrate to refuse the bail after recording the grounds in writing for refusal. He further argues that it is apparent from the record that delay is not attributed to the petitioners as no prosecution witness has been examined till date on account of their non-appearance before trial Court. He contends that parties have resolved their dispute amicably out of the court. He further contends that further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. [2025:RJ-JP:13319] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3050/2025] 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 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 counsel for the petitioners as also looking to the fact that no prosecution witness has examined till date; charge-sheet has been filed; period of custody and trial will take time in its conclusion, 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-petitioners – 1. Narendra Singh S/o Chandra Prakash and 2. Harendra Singh S/o Chandra Prakash shall be released on bail provided each of them 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 they 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. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J MADAN/39