[2025:RJ-JP:18586] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 11802/2024 P.l. Bhadkya @ Pappu S/o Gopal Lal, R/o Bhadkya, Police Station Kudgaon, District Karauli (Raj.) (Presently Accused Petitioner Is Confined At District Jail, Karauli). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Chauhan For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Jai Prakash Tiwari, PP Mr. Veerendra Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 18/03/2025 1. This third bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.131/2022 registered at Police Station Kudgaon, District Karauli (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341 & 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 14.09.2023 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of witnesses namely- Vijendra S/o Premraj and Khemendra Singh S/o Chiranjilal. Thereafter, second bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was also dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 19.01.2024 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail if there is change in circumstances. [2025:RJ-JP:18586] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-11802/2024] 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 17 prosecution witnesses have been examined during the course of trial and it appears from their testimony that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that other co-accused person namely- Annu & Abhishek have already been granted benefit of bail by this court and case of the present petitioner is also on similar footing. Counsel contends that mere presence of the petitioner in the video would not be enough to implicate him in this case. Counsel contends that sole eye-witness of the case namely- Vijendra has been examined during the course of trial wherein he has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. Counsel contends that according to the testimony of Investigating Officer, two pen drives were provided by Namonarayan Meena, who is elder brother of the deceased however, when Namonarayan Meena was examined as PW-1 during the course of trial, he denied the fact of giving pen drives to the Investigating Officer. At this stage, counsel submits that contradictory statements have been given by both the witnesses therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to the petitioner. It is further contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Petitioner is in custody since 09.09.2022 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned State Counsel assisted by learned counsel for complainant vehemently opposes the bail application. It is submitted that petitioner is clearly visible in the video which was saved in the pen drives and same went viral on social media. It is submitted that minor contradictions in the statement of the [2025:RJ-JP:18586] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-11802/2024] witnesses cannot be a ground to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner. It is submitted that similarly situated co-accused person namely- Ajay Kumar has already been denied benefit of bail by this court on last four occasions and there is no substantial change in circumstances. Learned counsel for complainant submits that genuineness of the video would be adjudged at the time of final decision of the case and it is not desirable for this Hon’ble High Court to make comments on the evidentiary value of the videos recovered during the course of investigation. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially the fact that presence of the petitioner is apparent from the video and as such incriminating evidence is available on record against him, as also the fact that deceased sustained 29 injuries and same is evident from the post-mortem report and there is no substantial change in circumstances after withdrawing the earlier bail applications, further, it is suffice to say that evidentiary value of the video would be decided by the trial court while deciding the case and it is not for the High courts to appreciate the evidence at the stage of bail. 6. Accordingly, this third bail application is dismissed. 7. The observation made hereinabove is only for disposal of the instant bail application and would not prejudice trial in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN ), J GAUTAM JAIN /14