[2026:RJ-JP:102] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 15660/2025 Mukesh Kumar @ Hulasaram S/o Lt. Shri Hanuman Sahai, R/o Village Mukundpura, Police Station Kanota, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (At Present Petitioner Is Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Balram Vashisth For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 06/01/2026 1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.884/2022 registered at Police Station Kanota, District Jaipur City (East) for offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 147, 302 & 34 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 09.02.2024 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of three eye-witnesses, namely, Failiram Yogi, Kumari Poonam and Sundari Devi. Out of aforesaid three witnesses, two have been examined during the course of trial, thus, this second bail application has been preferred. [2026:RJ-JP:102] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-15660/2025] 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that two witnesses, namely, Failiram Yogi and Kumari Poonam have been examined during the course of trial, but despite issuance and service of bailable warrant, witness Sundari Devi did not turn up for her testimony before learned trial court. It is submitted that statement of two witnesses recorded so far would reveal that there is no specific allegation to cause injury on the person of deceased. Learned counsel contends that witness Poonam has not even named the petitioner in her testimony. It is also evident from record that there is land dispute between the parties and injured witness Failiram Yogi has admitted the fact that they have encroached upon the government land adjoining to the land of petitioner. It is contended that co-accused Deshraj has been granted bail by this Court. It is contended that petitioner is in custody since 12.11.2022 and as such, he has suffered incarceration of more than three years. It is contended that till date, 18 witnesses have been examined out of 26 cited prosecution witnesses and further delay in conclusion of trial cannot be ruled out. It is argued that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner. 4. Learned State counsel 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 counsel for the petitioner, especially considering the fact that [2026:RJ-JP:102] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-15660/2025] petitioner is in custody since 12.11.2022; co-accused Deshraj has been granted bail by this Court so also the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner; charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion, 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 - Mukesh Kumar @ Hulasaram S/o Lt. Shri Hanuman Sahai, shall be released on bail provided, he shall furnish 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