[2025:RJ-JP:10564] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 10995/2024 Dilip Singh S/o Shri Battu Lal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Macchhipura, Police Station Sadar Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur, Presently District Gangapur City (Raj.) (The Accused Petitioner Presently Confined Jail At Gangapur City). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 10996/2024 Brahmsingh @ Lukka S/o Shri Bharat Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Motipura, Police Station Sadar Gangapur City (Raj.) (The Accused Petitioner Presently Confined Jail At Gangapur City) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Kailash Chand Meena, for complainant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 06/03/2025 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.01/2023 registered at Police Station Sadar Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 & 120B of IPC and [2025:RJ-JP:10564] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-10995/2024] Section 3/25 of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, police has filed charge sheet in the court concerned. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that other co-accused persons have been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It is submitted that eyewitnesses, namely, Man Singh, Manish Singh and Amrit Singh have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile. It is contended that petitioners are in custody since 02.02.2023 and there are bleak chances of culmination of trial in near future. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. Both petitioners are habitual offenders as several other cases have already been registered against them. Mere fact that some of the eye-witnesses have been declared hostile, does not absolve the petitioners from criminal liability. It is submitted that both the petitioners were seen and identified by PW. 3 Jagannath at the place of incident and soon thereafter they ran away. It is submitted that one video has also been placed before the Court during evidence of the said witness wherein entire incident has been captured and presence of petitioners are well established at the place of incident in the said video. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that said video was not filed along with charge-sheet and the same was placed before the Court during testimony of witness Jagannath. He submits that as to who prepared this video is not [2025:RJ-JP:10564] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-10995/2024] available on record. Further, as to who provided this video to the said witness is also not come on record. Learned counsel contends that it is also evident from the charge-sheet that certificate required under the Evidence Act to establish the genuineness of the video has also not been filed. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar and material made available before me in the form of charge-sheet including testimony of PW.3 Jagannath and the fact that one video has been recovered in this matter wherein petitioners are clearly visible as well as criminal antecedents of the petitioners, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Suffice it to say that it is not the appropriate stage to make any comment with regard to genuineness of the video as the said issue can be dealt by trial court at the time of final decision of the criminal case. 7. Accordingly, these bail applications are dismissed. 8. Observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the bail applications and would not prejudice trial in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /9 & 11