[2025:RJ-JP:14644] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13015/2023 Vijay Singh Tanwar S/o Sh. Sharvan Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Jilo Police Station Paatan, District Sikar (Rajasthan) Presently Residing On Rent At House No. 13, Paras Vihar Colony, Akeda Dungar, Police Station Vishavkarma, Jaipur (Presently Confined At Central Jail, Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Prahlad Yadav S/o Khedan Yadav, R/o Plot No. 76A, Js Colony, Road No. 17, Vki, Vishwakarma, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anshuman Saxena For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 01/04/2025 1. The instant bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.212/2021 registered at Police Station Vishvakarma, District Jaipur West (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 452 & 307 of IPC. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323 & 302 of IPC and Section 4/25 of Arms Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that eye- witnesses of this case have been examined during the course of trial and it appears that petitioner was already shown to them in the Police Station therefore, identification of the petitioner by the eye-witnesses has no evidentiary value. It is submitted that recovery of iron rod at the instance of the petitioner also has no [2025:RJ-JP:14644] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13015/2023] evidentiary value as same has been recovered on the basis of joint information furnished by the petitioner as well as co-accused persons. Counsel submits that co-accused person of this case namely Ravindra Singh Hudeel has already been granted benefit of bail by the co-ordinate bench of this court. It is submitted that till date, 25 witnesses have been examined out of 29 cited prosecution witnesses. It is submitted that petitioner has served incarceration of about three years and nine months as he is in custody since 18.06.2021 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. Counsel relies upon the following judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in which facility of bail was granted to the accused person after considering the period of incarceration: i. Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Criminal Appeal No.2787/2024 ii. Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Anr. Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.8523/2024 3. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that entire incident has been captured in CCTV cameras. It appears from the CCTV footage that petitioner was present at the place of incident and he actively participated in commission of crime. It is submitted that since CCTV footage was secured during the course of investigation, there was no need to conduct test identification parade. She further submits that bail application of similarly situated person namely- Deshraj Singh Rathore has already been denied by the co-ordinate bench of this court. [2025:RJ-JP:14644] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-13015/2023] 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the order passed by Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc. First Bail Application No.4937/1998 titled as Yunis and Anr. Versus State of U.P. wherein it was observed that an accused cannot be denied bail, merely on the ground that the bail application of another accused has been rejected by the court earlier. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, more particularly the fact that entire incident has been captured in the CCTV cameras wherein petitioner is clearly visible and recovery has been made at the instance of the petitioner as well as other co- accused persons and bail application of similarly situated person has already been denied by co-ordinate bench of this court, so also considering the fact that order passed by the Allahabad High Court is in different factual matrix wherein accused was not heard, so also the fact that 25 witnesses have already been examined out of 29 cited prosecution witnesses, there is possibility that trial will be completed very soon thus, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed. 7. However, considering the period of incarceration trial court is requested to conclude the trial at earliest. It is made clear that trial shall be conducted on day-to-day basis. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /14