[2026:RJ-JP:1581] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 655/2026 Rakesh Kumar Saini S/o Late Shri Hardev Saini, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Jeeva Ki Dhani, Krana, The Narayanpur, Police Station Basdayal, District Alwar (Raj.) Presently Lodged At Central Jail, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devanshu Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 15/01/2026 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.460/2024 registered at Police Station Shyam Nagar, District Jaipur City (South) for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(4) & 61(2)(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short, ‘BNS’), 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(4), 61(2)(b), 340(2) & 329(3) of BNS, 2023. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on merits vide order dated 25.08.2025 however, liberty was granted to the petitioner to renew the prayer for bail before the learned trial Court under Section 480(6) of the [2026:RJ-JP:1581] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-655/2026] BNSS (Corresponding to Section 437(6) of Cr.PC), if trial is not completed within a period of 60 days from the first date fixed for recording the prosecution’ witnesses. Subsequently, after completion of 60 days, bail application was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the learned trial Court however, same has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 24.12.2025 thus, this second bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is contended that the bail application of the petitioner came to be dismissed along with the bail application of the co-accused namely, Rishabh Sharma and Anshul Khanna @ Anshul vide a common order dated 25.08.2025. It is contended that after rejection of the said bail application, co-accused, Rishabh Sharma filed bail application before Hon’ble Supreme Court and vide order dated 28.11.2025 benefit of bail has been extended to the said co- accused by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 5114/2025. It is argued that charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 05.04.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor 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 learned [2026:RJ-JP:1581] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-655/2026] Counsel for the petitioner, especially the fact that similarly situated co-accused person has been granted benefit of bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court, as also the fact that charge-sheet has been filed and 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 proper to allow the second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Rakesh Kumar Saini S/o Late Shri Hardev Saini, 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. 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 CHARU SONI /32