[2025:RJ-JP:44978] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Third Bail Application No. 7356/2025 Dilip Singh S/o Battu Lal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Macchhipura, Police Station Sadar Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur, Presently District Gangapur City (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In Sub Jail At Gangapur City). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent Connected With S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Third Bail Application No. 9482/2025 Babla @ Hukamsingh S/o Bharat Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Motipura, Police Station Sadar, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) (Presently Confined In Sub Jail, Gangapur City). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Pal Jadoun with Mr. Anuraj Chahar Mr. Rinesh Kumar Gupta Mr. Gaurav Sharma For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt. G.A. Mr. Kailash Chand Meena HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 03/11/2025 1. These third 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 offences [2025:RJ-JP:44978] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-7356/2025] punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 & 120B of IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. The first bail applications filed on behalf of the petitioners were dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 19.07.2024 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of three eye-witnesses namely- Manish Singh, Maan Singh and Amrit. Thereafter, petitioner- Dilip Singh filed second bail application and same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 06.03.2025 and petitioner- Babla @ Hukam Singh filed second (interim) bail application which was dismissed as withdrawn by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.07.2025. Now, these third bail applications have been preferred on behalf of the petitioners. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that no incriminating material has come on record to justify further detention of the petitioners. It is submitted that other co-accused persons, who are standing on an identical or even graver footing, have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court as well as Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and therefore, benefit of bail should be extended to the petitioners on the ground of parity. It is contended that material prosecution witnesses, namely- Maan Singh, Manish Singh and Amrit Singh, who were cited as eye-witnesses to the alleged incident, have not supported the prosecution version during trial and have been declared hostile, which substantially weakens the prosecution [2025:RJ-JP:44978] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-7356/2025] case. It is further submitted that petitioner- Dilip Singh is in custody since 02.02.2023 and petitioner- Babla @ Hukamsingh is in custody since 22.01.2023 and though considerable time has passed, the trial has not reached any significant stage. It is pointed out that recently, another accused has been arrested and his case has been ordered to be tried jointly with that of the petitioners and same shall amount to a de novo trial. Consequently, there is hardly any likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future. 4. It is thus, urged that in such a case, further incarceration of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose, particularly when material witnesses have already been examined and there is no apprehension of tampering with evidence or influencing the witnesses. It is accordingly prayed that the petitioners be enlarged on bail on appropriate terms and conditions. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. It is submitted that petitioners are habitual offenders as several other cases have 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 petitioners were seen and identified by witness namely- Jagannath (PW-3) at the place of incident and soon thereafter, they ran away. It is submitted that one video was also placed before the Court during evidence of the said witness wherein entire incident has been captured and petitioners are clearly visible at the place of incident in the said video. It is [2025:RJ-JP:44978] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-7356/2025] submitted by learned counsel for the complainant that earlier bail applications preferred by petitioner- Dilip and co-accused namely- Brahmsingh @ Lukka was considered and dismissed by this Court vide order dated 06.03.2025 and said order was assailed by co- accused Brahmsingh @ Lukka before Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 30996/2025 and said SLP was dismissed vide order dated 30.07.2025. It is submitted that most of the witnesses have already been examined before the trial Court. Counsel further submits that an application has already been filed to separate the trial of petitioners from the recently arrested co-accused. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that said video was not filed along with the charge-sheet and same was placed before the Court during testimony of witness namely- Jagannath (PW-3). He submits that information as to who prepared the video is not available on record. Further, information as to who provided this video to the said witness has 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. 7. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by both the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially considering the material available before me in the form of charge-sheet including testimony of witness namely- Jagannath (PW-3) and the [2025:RJ-JP:44978] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-7356/2025] fact that one video has been recovered in this matter wherein petitioners are clearly visible, as also considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioners, so also the fact that bail application of the co-accused which was dismissed by this Court was assailed before Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing SLP and said SLP has been dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 9. Suffice to say that veracity of the video will be decided by the learned trial Court at the time of final disposal of the case and it would not be appropriate for this Court to form any opinion about the genuineness of the video at this stage. 10. Accordingly, these third bail applications are dismissed. 11. Needless to say that petitioners may file appropriate application for conducting their trial separately from that of the co-accused who has been arrested and charge-sheeted recently. If any such application is filed, same shall be considered and decided by the trial Court in accordance with law. 12. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail applications and would not prejudice the trial in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /7-8