[2026:RJ-JP:26152] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 12336/2025 URN: CRLMB / 24023U / 2025 Daksha Kumar Gautam @ Raju Pandit S/o Manohar Lal Joshi, Aged About 37 Years, R/o House No. 28, Near State Bank, Ward No. 10 Chaksu, Police Station Chaksu District Jaipur (Present Confined In Centre Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, and Ms. Aarti Sharma, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 13/07/2026 1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No. 1275/2023 registered at Police Station Mansarovar, District Jaipur City (South) for offence under Sections 342, 341, 323, 377, 376 and 384 of I.P.C. 1860. 2. The first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 17.12.2024, with liberty to file a fresh bail application after the examination of both the prosecutrix before the learned trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the prosecutrix have been examined before the learned Trial Court. He [2026:RJ-JP:26152] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-12336/2025] further submits that the case of the accused-petitioner is in no manner distinguishable from the case of the co-accused Chandan Singh Nathawat @ Vikas who has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 18.09.2024. He also submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 08.06.2024 and trial of the case is likely to take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he may be released on bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the second bail application and submits that as per statements of both the prosecutrix recorded before the learned trial Court, there are specific allegation of rape and beating against the accused- petitioner. 5. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused statements of both the prosecutrix. 6. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly the fact that there are specific allegations of rape and beating against the accused-petitioner in the statements of both the prosecutrix recorded before the learned trial Court, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 7. As far as release of the co-accused on bail is concerned, he was not named in the initial complaint, whereas specific allegations have been levelled against the present accused- petitioner in the initial complaint. 8. Accordingly, this second bail application is dismissed. [2026:RJ-JP:26152] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-12336/2025] 9. Looking to the custody period of the accused-petitioner, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as early as possible. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J 1/SHRUTI SHARMA