[2025:RJ-JP:46555] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No. 14881/2025 Vishal @ Vishu S/o Mukesh Kewat, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Near Lotus Hotel, Danmal Ji Ka Aahata, Bheemganjmandi, Kota. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Kota) ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Kumar Jha For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 17/11/2025 1. This third bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.184/2024 registered at Police Station Bhimganj Mandi, District Kota City for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 126(2), 190 & 191(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short, ‘BNS’), 2023. After completion of investigation, police has filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 126(2), 190 & 191(3) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4/25 of Arms Act. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 24.02.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of eye-witness namely- Rohan Dangoriya. Thereafter, second bail application was filed on behalf of the petitioner however, same was also dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide [2025:RJ-JP:46555] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-14881/2025] order dated 06.08.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail in changed circumstances, favoring the case of the petitioner. Now, additional witnesses have been examined by the prosecution thus, in the light of changed circumstances, this third bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that the eyewitnesses and other key prosecution witnesses, particularly the shop owner from whose shop CCTV footage was collected by the Investigating Agency, have not supported the prosecution’s case and they have been declared hostile. The counsel further submits that the petitioner stands on an equal footing with co-accused persons who have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court. It is contended that there are no prior criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as till date, only 5 witnesses have been examined out of 41 cited prosecution witnesses. It is emphasized that the petitioner has been in custody since 05.09.2024 therefore, keeping the petitioner in further custody would serve no useful purpose. 4. On the other hand, the state counsel vehemently opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. He argues that the petitioner can be clearly identified in the CCTV footage, directly linking him to the crime scene. Furthermore, a blood- stained knife, allegedly the murder weapon was recovered at the instance of the petitioner, constituting a significant incriminating circumstance. He further contends that the shop owner being [2025:RJ-JP:46555] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-14881/2025] hostile does not materially weaken the prosecution’s case as the witness has admitted to having provided the hard disk containing the CCTV footage to the police thereby, affirming the authenticity and availability of the evidence. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the evidence available on record against the petitioner, particularly the fact that petitioner’s presence and role is well established from the CCTV footage, as also the fact that a blood- stained knife has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner, which contains DNA of the deceased as well as looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 7. 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 this stage. 8. Accordingly, this third bail application stands dismissed. 9. The observations made hereinabove are only for disposal of the present bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /10