[2026:RJ-JP:4309] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 524/2026 Rahul Kumar son of Sitaram, aged about 23 years, resident of Chainpura Dedwadi Tan Bilod, Police Station Raisar, District Jaipur Rural (At present the petitioner is confined in District Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma with Mr. Dinesh Sharma, Mr. Moun Yadav & Mr. Kishan Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishiraj Singh Rathore, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 30/01/2026 1. This 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.212/2024 registered at Police Station Raisar, District Jaipur Rural (Rajasthan) for offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 126(2), 115(2), 329(3), 352 & 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 126(2), 115(2), 329(3), 352, 351(2), 117(3) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 10.09.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of injured as well as medical expert who prepared the MLC of the injured. Now, both the witnesses have been examined [2026:RJ-JP:4309] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-524/2026] during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that medical expert has been examined during the course of trial wherein it has been stated by him that possibility cannot be ruled out that injured of this case lost his vision on account of an old injury. It is submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 12.07.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. He submits that injured has lost his vision on account of injury which has been attributed to 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 learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow the second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Rahul Kumar son of Sitaram [2026:RJ-JP:4309] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-524/2026] shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty 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. However, it is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till conclusion of the trial. 9. Concerned SHO shall enter attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 10. If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court. 11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 12. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /25