[2025:RJ-JP:18047] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 3159/2025 Priyanshu Goyal S/o Mukeshchand Goyal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Agarwal Colony, Sarmathura, Police Station Sarmathura, District Dholpur (At Present Confined In District Jail Dholpur.) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aditya Mishra with Mr. Ishan Mishra Ms. Rashmi Meena For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP Mr. Anil Jain with Mr. Udit Sapra Mr. Dushyant Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 29/04/2025 1. The second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.41/2024 registered at Police Station Sarmathura, District Dholpur (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 382 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of IPC. 2. First bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.01.2025 with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording the testimony of witness namely Mahendra s/o Rambharosi who according to the prosecution story, dropped the petitioner near the house of the deceased. Now, the [2025:RJ-JP:18047] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3159/2025] aforesaid witness has 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. It is submitted that witness namely- Mahendra has been examined during the course of trial wherein he has not supported the prosecution case rather it has been clearly stated by him that petitioner was with him throughout and petitioner did not leave the place for even a minute. Counsel submits that admittedly, it is a case based on circumstantial evidence and there is no eye- witness of the incident. It is submitted that no incriminating evidence is available on record against the petitioner. There are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since 16.02.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 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, material made available on record in the form of charge- sheet including statement of the witness namely- Mahendra, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the [2025:RJ-JP:18047] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3159/2025] 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 Priyanshu Goyal S/o Mukeshchand Goyal, 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 observation 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 /278(s)