[2025:RJ-JP:10166] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3264/2025 1. Chain Singh S/o Daulatram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Khamni Police Station Sunel District Jhalawar (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Sub District Jail, Bhawani Mandi District Jhalawar (Raj.) 2. Balwant Singh S/o Prabhulal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Khamni Police Station Sunel District Jhalawar (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Sub District Jail, Bhawani Mandi District Jhalawar (Raj.) ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 06/03/2025 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.184/2024 registered at Police Station Sunel, District Jhalawar (Rajasthan) for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 126(2), 115(2) 109(1) & 331(6) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short ‘BNS’), 2023. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 126(2), 115(2), 109(1), 331(6), 118(1) & 118(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4/25 of Arms Act. [2025:RJ-JP:10166] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3264/2025] 2. First bail application of the petitioners was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to renew the prayer of bail after recording the testimony of Doctor, who prepared MLC of the injured and complainant- Sonu Bhil. Now, testimony of Doctor has been recorded during the course of trial as PW-1. Thus, this second bail application has been preferred by the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that according to the testimony of medical expert, none of the injuries sustained by the injured were dangerous to life. There are no criminal antecedents against petitioner- Chain Singh whereas one other case has been registered against the petitioner- Balwant Singh wherein he is on bail. Charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioners are in custody since 27.09.2024 and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners however, he fairly concedes the fact that at initial stage, injuries sustained by the injured was opined as dangerous to life by the medical expert but in cross- examination he clearly stated that none of the injuries sustained by the injured were dangerous to life. 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, so also considering the material made available on record in the form of charge-sheet including [2025:RJ-JP:10166] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3264/2025] testimony of medical expert; trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners (1) Chain Singh S/o Daulatram and (2) Balwant Singh S/o Prabhulal 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. 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. 9. Learned trial Court is directed to pass appropriate order at the time of pronouncing the final judgment as statement given by the medical expert during the course of trial is contrary to the record. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /26