[2025:RJ-JP:45530] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Sixth Bail Application No. 13489/2025 Ajay Kumar S/o Harilal, R/o Khoobpura, Police Station Kudgaanv, District Karauli (Raj.) (At Present Petitioner Is Confined In Dis- trict Jail Karauli). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Singh Yaduvanshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 07/11/2025 1. This sixth bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody in connection with FIR No.131/2022 registered at Police Station Kudgaon, District Karauli for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341 and 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 302 and 120B of IPC. 2. The previous bail applications preferred on behalf of the petitioner were dismissed vide orders dated 14.09.2023, 12.12.2023, 18.04.2024, 22.07.2024 & 18.03.2025. Now, this sixth bail application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 24 prosecution witnesses have been examined during the course of [2025:RJ-JP:45530] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-13489/2025] trial and it appears from their testimony that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that co-accused persons namely- Annu and Abhishek have already been granted benefit of bail by this court and case of the present petitioner is also on similar footing. Counsel contends that mere presence of the petitioner in the video would not be enough to implicate him in this case. Counsel contends that sole eye-witness of the case namely- Vijendra has been examined during the course of trial wherein he has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. Counsel contends that according to the testimony of Investigating Officer, two pen drives were provided by Namonarayan Meena, who is elder brother of the deceased however, when Namonarayan Meena was examined as PW-1 during the course of trial, he denied the fact of giving pen drives to the Investigating Officer. It is submitted that contradictory statements have been given by both the witnesses therefore, benefit of bail may be granted to the petitioner. It is further contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 09.09.2022 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned State Counsel opposes the bail application. It is submitted that petitioner is clearly visible in the video which was saved in the pen drives and same went viral on social media. It is submitted that minor contradictions in the statement of the witnesses cannot be a ground to grant benefit of bail to the petitioner. It is submitted that similarly situated co-accused person [2025:RJ-JP:45530] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-13489/2025] namely- P.L. Bhadkya @ Pappu has already been denied benefit of bail by this court on last three occasions and as such, there is no substantial change in circumstances. It is submitted that genuineness of the video would be adjudged at the time of the final decision of the case, and it is not desirable for this Court to comment on the evidentiary value of the videos recovered during the course of investigation. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially the fact that presence of the petitioner is apparent from the video and as such incriminating evidence is available on record against him, as also the fact that deceased sustained 29 injuries which is evident from the post-mortem report, so also the fact that there is no substantial change in circumstances after rejection of the earlier bail applications. 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 the stage of bail. 7. Accordingly, this sixth bail application stands dismissed. 8. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /54