[2025:RJ-JP:46346] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IInd Bail Application No. 14988/2025 Mohammed Zamir S/o Mohammed Sameer, Aged About 20 Years, Residence- 131/49 B, Begum Purav Police Station Babupurva, District Kanpur, Uttarpradesh Presently Tenant House No. 98A, Pushpa Marg, Krishna Colony, Ramgarh Mod, Police Station Brahmpuri, District Jaipur (At Present Accused-Petitioner Confined In Central Jail Jaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohd Umar Farooq For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 18/11/2025 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 196/2024 registered at Police Station Jaisinghpura Khor, District Jaipur City (North) for the offence(s) under Sections 323, 341, 307, 302 and 34 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. On the ground that subsequent witnesses recorded during trial not supported the prosecution story. Probative value of recovery witness PW-10 is also questionable as in cross-examination he has deposed that he he was not aware to the fact that from where the Investigating Officer recovered the weapon. It is also argued that [2025:RJ-JP:46346] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-14988/2025] PW-2 Sufiyan in his cross-examination has not supported the prosecution story, therefore considering the above facts, the second bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and contended that the first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 01.04.2025, after relying upon the statement of PW-2 Sufiyan. Petitioner has raised the doubt over the statement of PW-2 Sufiyan which has already been dealt in the previous order, subsequent recording of the witnesses has no impact over the observation made by the court in the order dated 01.04.2025, therefore the second bail application of the accused-petitioner deserves dismissal. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. This court vide order dated 01.04.2025 at para-5 observed as under:- "PW-2 Sufiyan, who is the material witness in his deposition before the concerned Court has stated against the accused-petitioners. He has specifically stated that the petitioner Mohd. Jamir caused injuries with the aid of knife to the deceased Mohd. Salman and the petitioner Mohd. Sahil, grabbed the deceased Mohd. Salman from his back and Mohd. Arslaan caused injuries with the aid of knife resulting into death of Mohd. Salman. At this juncture, it is not desirable to express anything upon the probative value of the witness PW-2 Sufiyan, therefore, considering the statement of PW-2 Sufiyan, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail." 6. Petitioner has again moved the second bail application on the basis of subsequent statements recorded during trial, questioning the recovery and also probative value of PW-2 Sufiyan. This court has already dealt with the ocular evidence of PW-2 Sufiyan. [2025:RJ-JP:46346] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-14988/2025] Considering the above facts, this court is not inclined to enlarge the accused petitioner on bail. 7. Accordingly, the second bail application of the accused- petitioner is hereby is dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J ashu /6