[2026:RJ-JP:19951] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 6892/2026 Pradeep S/o Sitaram Jangid, R/o Anantpura, Police Station Bahrod, District Kotputli-Behror (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Puri, Mr. Ketan Dhabhai, Ms. Keerti For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 12/05/2026 1. This second anticipatory bail application has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No. 332/2025 registered at Police Station Mundawar, District Khairthal-Tijara for offence under Sections 308(2), 308(6) and 61(2)(a) of BNS 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn in view of the fact that it was stated by the learned Public Prosecutor that there are CDRs which show the conversations between the accused-petitioner and the other co- accused. He also submits that there is no need of custodial interrogation of the accused-petitioner. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. [2026:RJ-JP:19951] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-6892/2026] 4. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material made available on record. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Gurvinder Singh Vs. Jasbir Singh @ Jasvir Singh & Anr. In Criminal Appeal No. ------of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.3843/2025, decided on 15.09.2025, observed as under:- “6. Having Considered the matter in depth, we find substance in the contention of learned counsel for the appellant. 7. The learned Single Judge, after having passed an order dismissing the prayer for anticipatory bail, could not have revived the proceedings, much less by way of restoration. The Court could not have then proceeded to reverse its earlier order by allowing the prayer for anticipatory bail which was initially rejected. 8. Accordingly, the order impugned dated 07.02.2025 stands set aside. The initial order dated 17.01.2025, dismissing the application and prayer for anticipatory bail, stands revived. 9. Consequences to follow. The parties are left open to avail the remedies as may be available to them in law.” 6. In view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Gurvinder Singh(supra), this Court is not inclined to entertain the second anticipatory bail application of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the present second anticipatory bail application is dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J SHRUTI SHARMA /8