[2026:RJ-JP:26016] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 3514/2026 URN: CRLMB / 6280U / 2026 Dakshit S/o Shri Dharamveer, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Chima Ka Bas, Police Station Suragarh, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. (Presently Accused Confined At District Jail Jhunjhunu). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Gupta with Mr. Tanay Choudhary Mr. Aval Yadav Ms. Anisha Yadav For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rishiraj Singh Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 09/07/2026 1. This second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.235/2024 registered at Police Station Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) for offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 109(1), 331(8), 331(6) & 61(2)(a) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short 'BNS') 2023 and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Amendment 2019). After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 103(1), 109(1), 331(8), 61(2)(a), 332(a) & 329(3) of the BNS, [2026:RJ-JP:26016] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-3514/2026] 2023 and Sections 3/25 and 4 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Amendment 2019). 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on merits vide order dated 21.02.2025. Now, this second bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that none of the eyewitnesses has named the petitioner in their testimony before the trial Court. It is further submitted that when the petitioner was produced before the trial Court through video conferencing (VC) during the recording of evidence, none of the witnesses identified him as one of the assailants. Counsel submits that the alleged recovery of four live cartridges from the possession of the petitioner is highly doubtful, inasmuch as similar recoveries shown to be made from other co-accused persons are alleged to have been effected from a single plastic bag lying in the same pit on the same day. Counsel submits that the parents of the deceased, who are cited as eyewitnesses to the occurrence, did not name the petitioner during their examination before the trial Court rather, they named the other accused persons and attributed specific overt acts to them. It is also submitted that the wife of the deceased did not support the prosecution case and she was declared hostile. Counsel submits that although two other cases have been registered against the petitioner, he has already been granted benefit of bail in both the said cases. It is submitted that till 05.06.2026, only 9 witnesses have been examined out of [2026:RJ-JP:26016] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-3514/2026] 27 cited prosecution witnesses and as such, the trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since 10.08.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Hon'ble Court. He thus, prays that this second application for bail may be considered liberally. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application, contending that the allegations pertain to a grave and heinous offence involving honour killing. However, he was unable to controvert the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that none of the eyewitnesses, in their testimony before the trial Court has either named or identified the petitioner as one of the accused. 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 parties, especially considering all the material available on record, including the evidence which has come on record so far, as also considering the manner in which the alleged recovery of the cartridges is stated to have been effected from the possession of the petitioner and 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, this Court deems it fit and proper to allow the second bail application. 7. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is [2026:RJ-JP:26016] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-3514/2026] directed that accused-petitioner Dakshit S/o Shri Dharamveer, 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. 8. Considering the criminal antecedents of the 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 12. 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 7/Manoj Solanki