[2025:RJ-JP:33520] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 2791/2025 Saddam Husain @ Chacha Murli S/o Ramjani, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Near Rajeev Gandhi Pathshala, Sajidehda, Kishore- pura, Kota (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP, Kota ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Saxena for Ms. Rekha Arora 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.133/2023 registered at Police Station Kishorepura, District Kota City (Raj.) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 302 & 120B of IPC and Section 9/25 of Arms Act. 2. The first bail application preferred on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by this court vide order dated 06.09.2024. Now, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that witness [2025:RJ-JP:33520] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2791/2025] namely- Pappu Bhil, who saw the petitioner at the place of incident has been examined during the course of trial wherein he has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. It is submitted that in such circumstances, no evidence is available on record against the petitioner. It is also evident from the record that CCTV footage was collected by one witness namely- Kalpana and she has also been examined during the course of trial wherein she has not stated anything against the petitioner. Counsel contends that it is evident from the statement of other witnesses that they did not see the petitioner committing murder. It is contended that till 30.01.2025, only 16 witnesses were examined out of 46 cited prosecution witnesses thus, there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 24.06.2023 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the bail application and submits that petitioner along with co-accused Kapil Mirja can be clearly seen in the CCTV footage soon after and before the incident which is evident from the statement of Police witnesses namely- Ramkishan & Bhupendra Singh, who have identified the petitioner and co-accused Kapil Mirja in CCTV footage. It is submitted that country-made pistol has also been recovered at the instance of the petitioner. Counsel further submits that one other case has also been registered against the petitioner. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, as [2025:RJ-JP:33520] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2791/2025] also considering the role attributed to the petitioner as well as looking to the nature and gravity of offence, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, this second bail application is dismissed. 7. 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 /85