[2025:RJ-JP:50866] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 10666/2025 Dharmraj S/o Surendra, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Sukhawali, Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) (Accused At Present Confined In District Jail, Bharatpur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Ms. Chanchal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP, Mr. Deepak Chauhan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Judgment 1. Date of conclusion of arguments 21 / 11 /2025 2. Date on which the judgment was reserved 21 / 11 /2025 3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced: Full Judgment 4. Date of pronouncement ... /12 /2025 1. The instant third bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of the accused-petitioner. The accused-peti- tioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 218/2023, registered at Police Station Halena, District Bharatpur, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302 and 120-B of the IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. The material eye witnesses have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution's story. He further submits that the [2025:RJ-JP:50866] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-10666/2025] other co-accused, Bablu, whose case is identical to the case of the petitioner, has already been enlarged on bail. It is contended that, from the possession of the co-accused Bablu, a firearm along with cartridges was recovered, even though he has been enlarged on bail. It is further submitted that the bail order passed in favour of co-accused Bablu was challenged before the Hon’ble Apex Court, and the Apex Court, vide order dated 17.01.2025, did not interfere with the order of granting him liberty. It is argued that there is no material available on record to show that the petitioner Dharamraj, in association with the other co-accused, conspired to murder the deceased Kuldeep, and also to cause injuries to the injured Vijaypal. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 17.07.2023, and the call records between the petitioner and the other co-accused do not indicate any conspiracy to commit the alleged offences. Therefore, in light of these facts, it is prayed that the third bail application be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the instant third bail application. They submit that this Court, vide order dated 03.02.2025, dismissed the petitioner’s second bail application for the reasons recorded as under: " 6. The first bail application of the peti- tioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 09.10.2024, observing the fact that the petitioner was apprehended by the Police Station Rudawal along with fire arms and the connectivity of the main accused Lokendra was found with the present accused-petitioner, therefore, considering the above facts, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused- petitioner." [2025:RJ-JP:50866] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-10666/2025] It is contended that there is no change in circumstances except that some witnesses have been examined, and there is no reason for this Court to reassess or re-appreciate the evidence already dealt with in the previous order. Hence, it is prayed that the present application be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on record. 5. This Court, vide orders dated 09.10.2024 and 03.02.2025, dismissed the petitioner’s first and second bail applications, respectively. The Trial Court has now examined the witnesses relevant to the incident, and it would not be appropriate for this Court to comment on the probative value of their testimony. The allegation against the main accused is that they, along with the petitioner Dharmraj, hatched a conspiracy to murder the deceased Kuldeep, who was in custody, and to assault his associate Vijaypal. The prosecution's case, apart from the eyewitness statements, is based on CCTV footage captured at the scene of the incident and on call records between the main co-accused and the present petitioner. Therefore, considering the above facts and more particularly that the petitioner's first and second bail applications were dismissed on merits, the third bail application filed by the accused-petitioner is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Keshav/2