[2026:RJ-JP:1082] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 7542/2025 Dev Bajad @ Deva Gurjar S/o Sh. Sundar Kumar Guarjar, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Gali No. 1, Shantipura Chauk Shantipura, Vaishalinagar, Ajmer Police Station Chritiringanj, District Ajmer. (At Present Accused Petitioner Is Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Maharshi with Mr. Devanshu Saini Mr. Shubham Saini For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Amit Punia, PP Mr. Vijay Kumar Jangid HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 08/01/2026 1. This second bail application under Section 483 BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.614/2024 registered at Police Station Christian Ganj, District Ajmer (Raj.) for offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 352, 310(2), 140(3), 62, 326(g) & 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet before the concerned Court. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on merits vide order dated 18.03.2025. [2026:RJ-JP:1082] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-7542/2025] Now, this second bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that co- accused persons namely- Dinesh Choudhary, Dinesh Godara, Vikas Choudhary, Pradeep Soni and Khushiram Jat have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court. It is submitted that charges were framed against the petitioner on 28.04.2025 and summons have been served upon the witnesses but till date prosecution witnesses are not turning up for recording their testimony. It is submitted that there are bleak chances of culmination of trial in near future as till date, not a single witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 06.01.2025 and as such, he has suffered incarceration of more than one year. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot be kept in continued custody for an inordinate period, especially when the delay in recording of evidence is not attributable to him in any manner. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Counsel submits that earlier bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on merits after considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, and as such, there is no substantial change in circumstances to entertain this second bail application. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially [2026:RJ-JP:1082] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-7542/2025] considering the material available on record, as also considering the fact that petitioner has suffered incarceration of more than a year, so also the fact that there are bleak chances of culmination of trial in near future as till date, not a single witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution, 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 Dev Bajad @ Deva Gurjar S/o Sh. Sundar Kumar Guarjar 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 GAUTAM JAIN /10