[2026:RJ-JP:13310] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 4566/2026 1. Kamlesh @ Kamal S/o Radhey Shyam, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Bad Mohanpura, Near Ganesh Paradise, Iscon Road, Mansarovar, Police Station Muhana, Jaipur Raj. 2. Ramesh Chand S/o Radhey Shyam, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Bad Mohanpura, Near Ganesh Paradise, Iscon Road, Mansarovar, Police Station Muhana, Jaipur Raj. 3. Rajesh S/o Radhey Shyam, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Bad Mohanpura, Near Ganesh Paradise, Iscon Road, Mansarovar, Police Station Muhana, Jaipur Raj. ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 4567/2026 Radhey Shyam S/o Dayal, Aged About 65 Years, R/o Bad Mohanpura, Near Ganesh Paradise, Iscon Road, Mansarovar, Police Station Muhana, Jaipur Raj. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Kumawat For Respondent(s) : Ms. Aarti Sharma, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 30/03/2026 1. The petitioners have filed these second anticipatory bail applications under Section 482 B.N.S.S. arising out of F.I.R. [2026:RJ-JP:13310] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4566/2026] No.1514/2023 registered with the Police Station, Muhana, District Jaipur City (South), for offence under Sections 143, 332, 353, 427, 504 and 506 of IPC. 2. The learned counsels appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in this matter with their entire family. He further submits that as per F.I.R., there is no specific allegation levelled against the petitioners and no kind of any recovery is required to be effected from them. Therefore, he prays that the petitioners may be extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and submits that the second application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable. 4. Heard. 5. Considered the submissions. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Gurvinder Singh Vs. Jasbir Singh @ Jasvir Singh & Anr. In Criminal Appeal No. ------of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.3843/2025, decided on 15.09.2025, observed as under:- “6. Having Considered the matter in depth, we find substance in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant. 7. The learned Single Judge, after having passed an order dismissing the prayer for anticipatory bail, could not have revived the proceedings, much less by way of restoration. The Court could not have then proceeded to reverse its earlier order by allowing the prayer for anticipatory bail [2026:RJ-JP:13310] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4566/2026] which was initially rejected. 8. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 07.02.2025 stands set aside. The initial order dated 17.01.2025, dismissing the application and prayer for anticipatory bail, stands revived. 9. Consequences to follow. The parties are left open to avail the remedies as may be available to them in law.” 7. In view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Gurvinder Singh(supra), this Court is not inclined to entertain these second anticipatory bail applications filed by the petitioners. 8. Accordingly, these second anticipatory bail applications are dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /4-5