[2026:RJ-JP:9789] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 3006/2026 Umesh Kumar S/o Vinod Kumar, R/o Cb-165, Narayana Ring Road, Infront Of Kali Mandir, Police Station Narayana, Delhi- 110028, At Present H 1103, Fortune Residency Rajnagar Extension, Police Station Nandgram, District Gaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. (At Present In District Jail Sikar). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 06/03/2026 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.166/2024 registered at Police Station Laxmangarh (Sikar), District Sikar for offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120B of IPC. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 25.09.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail before learned trial Court under the provisions of Section 480(6) of BNSS (corresponding to Section 437(6) of Cr.P.C). In view of liberty granted by this Court, bail application was filed on behalf of the [2026:RJ-JP:9789] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-3006/2026] petitioner before the learned trial Court, however, same was dismissed. Subsequently, a bail application under Section 483 of BNSS was filed on behalf of the petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laxmangarh, District Sikar however, same was also dismissed vide order dated 23.01.2026. Thus, this second bail application has been filed. 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 charges were framed against the petitioner on 07.07.2025 and first date for recording the prosecution witnesses was fixed as 21.07.2025. It is submitted that more than seven months have passed however, trial is still pending. Counsel submits that no material is available on record attributing the delay to the petitioner. Counsel argues that petitioner is facing magisterial trial and maximum punishment for the alleged offences is seven years. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 11.10.2024 and as such, he has already suffered incarceration of more than 16 months and no fruitful purpose will be served by keeping him behind the bars. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of 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 petitioner is in custody since 11.10.2024 and maximum [2026:RJ-JP:9789] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-3006/2026] punishment for alleged offences is 7 years, 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 - Umesh Kumar S/o Vinod Kumar, 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. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail. 9. If any breach of this condition 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. 10. 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 /353