[2025:RJ-JP:15389] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No.4013/2025 Shamshad S/o Zainul, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Ward No.03, Village Farasat Police Station Baragchi District Arariya, Bihar (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail, Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohd. Umar Farooq Alvi, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Poonia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 07/04/2025 1. The instant 2nd bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused- petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.248/2021, registered at Police Station Mansarovar, District Jaipur City (South) for the offence(s) under Section 302 of IPC. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the first bail application of the accused-petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 13.03.2024 and thereafter PW.1 to PW.5 witnesses have been examined. It is also contended that the entire case rest upon the circumstantial evidence as it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused-petitioner was last seen with the deceased in the CCTV footage captured from the camera installed in the shop of Dilip Kumar Bambola. It is also argued that the photographs were submitted by PW.2-Banti @ Babla, during the [2025:RJ-JP:15389] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-4013/2025] course of investigation. The witness PW.2-Banti @ Babla in his cross-examination has stated that he did not submit any certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. He has also stated that no mobile phone was submitted by him. Further, he has also stated that Police did not recover any Printer, DVR or other devices from his possession. It is also contended that statements of Dilip Kumar Bambola were not recorded and no certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act was obtained from Dilip Kumar Bambola and he has not been shown as witness in the list of witnesses cited by the prosecution in the charge-sheet. It is also contended that the incident occurred on 29.01.2021, whereas the FIR was lodged on 27.03.2021 and the accused-petitioner was arrested on 08.12.2022. It is alleged against the accused-petitioner that blood stained stone, which was used for causing murder of the deceased Kishan Chand @ Bhanwar Lal was recovered at the instance of the accused- petitioner on 09.12.2022, the place of recovery of the stone was the same where the deceased’s dead body was found. The witness PW.2-Banti @ Babla, PW.3-Ganesh Thapa and PW.4-Ratan in their cross-examination have stated that the site plan was made on 30.01.2021 and the Police also recovered stone from the place of occurrence on the very same day. It is also contended that in the site plan made on 30.01.2021, no pole has been shown, whereas in the subsequent site plan the pole has been shown, and the place is the same which is mentioned in the site plan prepared on 30.01.2021. Apart from the above witnesses, there are no other substantive evidence available on the record indicating the role of accused-petitioner’s in the alleged crime. The accused-petitioner is [2025:RJ-JP:15389] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-4013/2025] in custody since 08.12.2022 and the prosecution has cited 21 witnesses, out of which statement of only 5 witnesses have been recorded till date and the trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the second bail application of the accused- petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of second bail application. It is contended that the case entirely rest upon the CCTV footage and recovery of stone effected at the instance of accused-petitioner is enough to connect the accused- petitioner in the alleged crime, there is no dispute about the fact that the deceased died due to antemortem injuries, which were sufficient to cause his death, therefore, considering the gravity of the offence, the second bail application of the accused-petitioner may be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused material available on the record. 5. The first bail application of the accused-petitioner was dismissed prior to the recording of the statement of the witnesses and the instant bail application has been filed after recording of the statements of 5 witnesses. It is not desirable to express anything on the merits of the case, the material witness PW.2 in his cross-examination has submitted that his mobile phone was not taken into possession by the Police Officials and he also did not submit any certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act before the Investigating Officer, no Printer, DVR etc., were recovered by the Investigating Officer. Similarly, he has stated that the recovery of blood stained stone was effected on 30.01.2021, therefore, considering the arguments advanced by [2025:RJ-JP:15389] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-4013/2025] learned counsel for the petitioner, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, the 2nd bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Shamshad S/o Zainul, in connection with FIR No.248/2021, registered at Police Station Mansarovar, District Jaipur City (South), shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-11