[2025:RJ-JP:45447] (1 of 4) [CRLMB-13897/2025] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 13897/2025 Ramlaxman @ Dhawal S/o Ramveer, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Bachan Singh Ka Pura, Radoli, Police Station Maniya, Dholpur, Presently Resident Of Tehsil Road, Maniya, Dholpur (Rajasthan) (Presently Confined In District Jail, Dholpur). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Garg For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP with Mr. Vivek Sharma, Addl. GA Mr. Uday Chand, IO, PS Maniya, District Dholpur and Mr. Yogesh Singhal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 12/11/2025 1. This second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.354/2023 registered at Police Station Maniya, District Dholpur (Raj.) for offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 and 120B of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 & 120B of IPC and Sections 3/25, 5/25 & 5/27 of Arms Act. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 27.01.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording the [2025:RJ-JP:45447] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-13897/2025] testimony of complainant/FIR lodger, Investigating Officer and witnesses namely- Ankush Jain and Vinod. Now, all the aforementioned witnesses have been examined during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submits that petitioner has no connection with the present case. It is evident from the statements of the complainant and three so-called eye-witnesses that they are not the actual eye-witnesses and they have given their statements based on some video footage. The video and CCTV footage referred to in their statements have not been proven since the witness from whose shop the footage was allegedly taken or collected has been declared hostile by the prosecution during the course of trial. This witness denied any recovery being made from his shop and stated that his cameras were not working on the date of the incident. He further submits that the analysis of the footage was prepared 45 days after the alleged incident, and on the same day, footage was transferred from the hard disk to a pen drive, which raises doubt about the authenticity of the footage. He also contends that the ballistic expert's report casts suspicion on the alleged recovery of the firearm from the possession of the petitioner, as the report indicates that the bullet used in the incident was not fired from the weapon recovered from the petitioner. It is contended that there are bleak chances of culmination of trial in near future as till date, only 7 witnesses have been examined out of 35 cited prosecution witnesses. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since [2025:RJ-JP:45447] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-13897/2025] 06.09.2024 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. In such circumstances, it would be just and proper to release him on bail. Counsel also pointed out that co- accused namely- Rahul S/o Shri Gopal Singh has already been granted benefit of bail by this court, though he fairly admitted that the role attributed to the co-accused person and petitioner are not identical. 4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner is the main accused in the case and he can be clearly seen firing at the deceased in the video. It is argued that declaring the shop owner hostile does not make a difference, as he has admitted his signatures on all the recovery memos and the certificate issued under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. It is contended by learned counsel for the complainant that mobile phone of the petitioner was found active at the place of incident and he was in contact with other accused persons. It is argued that all eye-witnesses have identified the petitioner as being involved in the incident, and the statements of several other eye- witnesses are yet to be recorded. It is further submitted that petitioner remained absconding for a long time and he was arrested only after considerable effort, nearly a year after the incident; hence, there is a strong possibility of him absconding again if he is released on bail. 5. I have considered the contentions. [2025:RJ-JP:45447] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-13897/2025] 6. Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet including testimony of complainant and other three eye-witnesses recorded during the course of trial, as also the fact that one video has been recovered in this matter wherein petitioner is clearly visible as well as looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. 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 the stage of bail. 8. Accordingly, this second bail application stands dismissed. 9. The observations made hereinabove are only for disposal of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /12