HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 4537/2025

Vikram Singh @ Vikky @ Banda S/o Chhatar Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Pathaina, Police Station Bhusawar, District Bharatpur. (Raj.). (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Bayana)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 4546/2025

Bhanu Pratap Singh S/o Prahlad Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Pathena, Police Station Bhusawar, District Bhartapur. (At Present Lodged In The Sub Jail, Weir, District Bharatpur).

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Rajeev Sogarwal<br>Mr. Ashvin Garg
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Shriram Dhakad, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

15/04/2025

1. These second bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.297/2024 registered at Police Station Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 34 & 120B of IPC.

2. Vide common order dated 30.01.2025, considering the facts and circumstances in totality, previous bail applications, filed on behalf of the petitioners were dismissed.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that from the testimonies of the witnesses so far examined during trial, it is clear that the petitioners have been unnecessarily roped in this case. There comes nothing on record against the petitioners. It is contended that the so-called last seen witness Attar Singh (PW.9) has also not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. It is also contended that the witnesses who allegedly provided CCTV footage to the investigation agency, have clearly stated in their crossexamination that they have not provided CCTV footage to the investigation agency and that no camera, pendrive and mobile has been seized by the police. Thus, nothing incriminating has come on record against the petitioners. Petitioners are in custody since 25.06.2024 and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail applications. It is submitted that after rejection of the first bail applications, there is no material change in the circumstances as the first bail applications of the petitioners were decided on merits after considering the facts and circumstances in their entirety on merits. In rebuttal of the argument of the counsel for the petitioners that the witnesses who allegedly provided CCTV

footage, pendrive etc. to the investigation agency, have not supported the prosecution case, it is argued that CCTV, Pendrive etc. are the part of the chargesheet and their credibility cannot be discarded only for this sole reason more particularly when they are supported with certificate under Section 65 of the Evidence Act. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that trial is being conducted expeditiously as in a very short span of time from the date of filing charge sheet in the court concerned, 17 witnesses, out of total 27 cited witnesses, have already been examined and only 10 witnesses are yet to be examined.

5. After rejection of the previous bail applications, there occurred no substantial change in circumstances. Out of total 27 witnesses, 17 witnesses have already been examined and only ten witnesses are yet to be examined. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar as also the fact that trial is being conducted expeditiously, I am not inclined to extend indulgence of bail to the accused petitioners. Any comment/observation of this court on the trustworthiness of the evidence including CCTV footage, pendrive etc. may prejudice trial and thus, without commenting anything on merits/demerits of the case, I am not inclined to accept these second bail applications.

6. Accordingly, these second bail applications stand dismissed.

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

LALIT MOHAN /24-25