[2025:RJ-JP:14306] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 4036/2025 Asharam Son Of Ramavtar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Jatwada Kalan, Police Station Soorwal, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In District Jail, Sawai Madhopur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 4037/2025 Nitish Alias Neet Son Of Dilip Kumar, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Lorwada, Police Station Soorwal, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In District Jail, Sawai Madhopur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 4038/2025 Hukam Singh S/o Pyar Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Biloli, Police Station Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur. (Presently Confined In District Jail Sawai Madhopur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal, Mr. Umesh Dixit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, PP, Mr. Shubham Sain, AAAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 28/03/2025 1. These instant bail applications have been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioners. The petitioners have [2025:RJ-JP:14306] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4036/2025] been arrested in connection with FIR No.216/2024 registered at Police Station Soorwal, District Sawaimadhopur for the offence(s) under Sections 309(6) of BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that the first bail applications of the accused- petitioners were dismissed by this Court with the liberty to file a fresh after recording of the statement of witness complainant- PW.1 Kapil Rathi. The statement of witness PW. 1 Kapil Rathi has been recorded by the trial court. It is contended that the statement of PW-1 Kapil Rathi is not reliable as in the FIR the PW.1 has named three other persons whereas, in the Court statement, he has deposed against the present petitioners and the other co-accused Tej Singh, who has already been enlarged on bail. It is also contended that the conduct of the complainant is also dubious as he was also involved in a matter of theft and the Police has not conducted any identification parade during investigation. PW-1 Kapil Rathi, in his FIR has stated that he identified the present petitioners on the basis of CCTV footage, whereas, in the Court statement he has stated that he was already knowing the accused-petitioners Asharam and Nitesh. The Police did not recover any CCTV footage and in the cross- examination, PW-1 Kapil Rathi has failed to identify the accused petitioners. It is also contended that though there are criminal antecedents against all the petitioners, however, the matter is exclusively triable by Magistrate, and the trial of the case may take considerable time as there is a long list of 32 prosecution [2025:RJ-JP:14306] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4036/2025] witnesses to be recorded by the trial court, therefore, these III bail applications of the accused-petitioners may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed these III bail applications and contended that PW-1 Kapil Rathi, in his Court statement has identified all the accused-petitioners and on the very same day, recovery of robbed amount of Rs. 2,35,000/- was effected from the possession of the accused petitioners, therefore, these III bail applications of the accused-petitioners may be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. It is alleged against the accused-petitioners that they committed robbery with the complainant PW-1 Kapil Rathi. PW-1 Kapil Rathi, in his examination-in-chief has stated against the accused petitioners. At this stage, it is not desirable to express anything on the credibility as to statement of witness PW-1 Kapil Rathi, therefore, considering the above facts, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail. 6. Accordingly, these III bail applications of the accused- petitioners is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/11-13