[2025:RJ-JP:51603] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No.16573/2025 Vijendra S/o Raghuveer, R/o Village Daulatpura, Police Station Sadar, District Bundi (Raj.). (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In District Jail Bundi). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Bhawna Sharma, Adv. Ms. Rajni Singh, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 19/12/2025 1. The instant second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. on behalf of accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.180/2025, registered at Police Station Sadar Bundi, District Bundi for the offence(s) under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 281, 110 and 3(5) of BNS. 2. The petitioner has moved the second bail application on the ground that the injured witness PW-4, Chogalal, has been examined and his deposition he deposed several discrepancies, thus he is not narrating the true facts. It is also contended that, during his cross-examination, the witness denied that he was armed; however, when the fact was confronted with the CCTV footage, he admitted that he struck the mirror of the vehicle and sustained injuries at his forehead. Thus, the version of the witness [2025:RJ-JP:51603] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16573/2025] does not appear reliable. It is further submitted that the accused- petitioner is in custody since 19.05.2025 and the further trial of the case may take considerable time. Therefore, the second bail application of the accused-petitioner deserves to be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of bail and contended that this Court, vide order dated 17.09.2025, dismissed the petitioner’s first bail application on merits and the entire incident was captured in the CCTV footage, which clearly shows that the petitioner knowingly and deliberately attempted to run over his vehicle. It is further contended that, PW-4, Chogalal, in his statement before the Court, has categorically deposed that the petitioner attempted to run over the vehicle upon him, causing fractures to his hand and leg, as well as injuries on his forehead. Therefore, considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the bail application of the petitioner deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. This Court, vide order dated 17.09.2025, dismissed the petitioner’s first bail application on the ground that he caused injuries to the injured, Chogalal, by running over his vehicle and the incident was also captured in the CCTV footage. PW-4 Chogalal, in his examination-in-chief, has corroborated the prosecution story. At this stage, it is not apposite for the Court to comment upon the probative value of the testimony of the injured witness. Considering the fact that the injured witness has supported the prosecution story in his examination-in-chief, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. [2025:RJ-JP:51603] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16573/2025] 6. Accordingly, the second bail application of the accused- petitioner is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-46