[2026:RJ-JP:9493] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 2927/2026 Ramesh Chand S/o Girdhari, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Unhel, Police Station Sunel, District Jhalawar (Raj.) (At Present In Sub Jail, Bhawani Mandi, Jhalawar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 05/03/2026 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.192/2025 registered at Police Station Sunel, District Jhalawar (Raj.) for offence punishable under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 109(1), 117(2) & 112(2) of the BNS, 2023. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 15.01.2026 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording the testimony of victim/injured. Now, victim/injured has been examined during the course of trial, thus, this second bail application has been preferred. [2026:RJ-JP:9493] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2927/2026] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that the testimony of injured would reveal that false case has been instituted against the petitioner. It is submitted that alleged incident took place on 09.10.2025, while matter was reported to the police on 15.10.2025 after a delay of six days for which no plausible/reasonable explanation is available on record. Trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since 17.10.2025 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. She submits that petitioner is a habitual offender as nine other cases have been registered against him. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that most of the cases registered against the petitioner with regard to theft relate to a period prior to the year 2017. 6. I have considered the contentions. 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by both the parties, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet including the testimony of victim/injured, as also the fact that 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. 8. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is [2026:RJ-JP:9493] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2927/2026] directed that accused-petitioner Ramesh Chand S/o Girdhari shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- 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. 9. Considering the criminal antecedents of the accused- petitioner, 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. 10. 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. 11. 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. 12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 13. 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 /68