[2025:RJ-JP:33682] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 1254/2025 Damo @ Damodar Singh S/o Atar Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Adda, Police Station Sadar Bayana District Bharatpur (Ra- jasthan) (Presently Accused Petitioner Is In The Judicial Custody District Jail Bharatpur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 13/08/2025 1. The second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.19/2023 registered at Police Station Sadar Bayana, District Bharatpur (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 341, 307, 302 & 336 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 17.09.2024 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of eye-witnesses namely- Vinod, Sanju @ Harendra, Ganesh Sain, Atar Singh, Shanti @ Manisha, Smt. Lalo, Premwati and Khem Singh. Now, some witnesses have been examined [2025:RJ-JP:33682] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-1254/2025] 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. Counsel submits that witnesses namely- Ganesh Sain and Khem Singh have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile. Counsel submits that co-accused namely- Bahadur, Dinesh, Manveer, Janak Singh, Darab Singh, Pintu & Deepak have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 25.10.2023 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. His argument is that the complainant in this case is the brother of the petitioner himself, who has accused another person in the FIR that he killed the deceased, who is brother of the complainant as well as the petitioner, by crushing him with a tractor. He further submits that during investigation, police came to know from their reliable sources that the petitioner himself had killed his brother by crushing him with a tractor. A video was also recorded by the police during the investigation in which it clearly visible that the petitioner himself has killed his brother by crushing him with a tractor. His argument is that the witnesses who are family members of the petitioner or acquaintances of him may lie but the circumstances clearly show that the murder was committed by [2025:RJ-JP:33682] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-1254/2025] the petitioner and the video cannot be ignored while considering this bail plea. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that prosecution failed to establish that how said video came in possession of the Investigating Agency therefore, at the stage of bail, Court should not believe on such video. 6. After hearing both the parties and taking into consideration of the entire material available on record including testimony of prosecution witnesses and the role attributed to the petitioner especially visible in video and looking to the nature as well as gravity of offence, I do not find it fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner under Section 483 of BNSS. 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 second bail application stands dismissed. 9. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /67