Dismissed¶¶28

Vishal @ Vishu S/O Mukesh Kewat, v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Nov 2025CRLMB/14881/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; CRLMB 14881/2025; third bail application; Section 483 BNSS; Vishal @ Vishu Mukesh Kewat; FIR 184/2024 Bhimganj Mandi Kota City; BNS 2023 Sections 103(1) 115(2) 126(2) 190 191(3); Arms Act Section 4/25; CCTV footage identification; bloodstained knife murder weapon DNA of deceased; hostile eyewitnesses contention; parity co-accused granted bail; custody since 05.09.2024; 5 of 41 prosecution witnesses examined; bail refused; CCTV video genuineness deferred to trial court; observations without impact on trial; Anil Kumar Upman Judge; 17/11/2025; dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None; the petitioner was not enlarged on bail. ¶¶28

Vishal @ Vishu S/O Mukesh Kewat, Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the petitioner was not enlarged on bail.

¶¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, in custody since 05.09.2024 in FIR No. 184/2024 (offences under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 126(2), 190 & 191(3) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4/25 of Arms Act), should be enlarged on bail through this third bail application filed in light of changed circumstances. +1 more

¶¶13

Court's answer

The Court found that the petitioner's presence and role is well established from the CCTV footage, and that a bloodstained knife had been recovered at the instance of the petitioner.

¶¶26

Ratio / Principle

Taking into account that the recovered bloodstained knife contains DNA of the deceased, along with the evidence available on record and the nature and gravity of the offence, the Court concluded it was not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶¶26

Key takeaways

The Court expressly left open the question of the veracity/genuineness of the CCTV video: it held it inappropriate to form any opinion thereon at the bail stage, leaving that determination to the learned trial Court at final disposal of the case.obiter¶¶27
The Court cautioned that its observations hereinabove were made only for disposal of the present bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.obiter¶¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

RAJASTHAN HC (JAIPUR) — S.B. Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No. 14881/2025 (Anil Kumar Upman, J.; order dt. 17/11/2025). Third bail plea under Section 483 of BNSS by Vishal @ Vishu, confined in Central Jail, Kota since 05.09.2024, in respect of FIR No. 184/2024 (PS Bhimganj Mandi, District Kota City) charging offences under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 126(2), 190 & 191(3) of BNS, 2023 and Section 4/25 of Arms Act; police charge-sheet filed; two earlier applications dismissed as withdrawn (orders dt. 24.02.2025 and 06.08.2025) carrying renewal liberties; trial then stood at only 5 of 41 cited prosecution witnesses examined. Counsel urged false implication, hostile eyewitnesses (including the shop owner who supplied the CCTV hard disk), parity with already-bailed co-accused, absence of antecedents and slow trial; State counsel pointed to petitioner's identifiability in CCTV footage and recovery at his instance of a bloodstained knife, allegedly the murder weapon. THE COURT DECLINED BAIL: petitioner's presence and role well established from the CCTV footage; the bloodstained knife recovered at his instance contains DNA of the deceased; nature and gravity of the offence weighed against enlargement. Genuineness/veracity of the CCTV video expressly left to the trial Court at final disposal. Observations expressly confined to disposal of this bail application, without impact on the trial. APPLICATION DISMISSED.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:46555]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc. 3^rd Bail Application No. 14881/2025

¶4

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)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Prakash Kumar Jha
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP
	Mr. Tapesh Agarwal,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶11

Order

¶12

17/11/2025

¶13

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.

¶14

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]

[CRLMB-14881/2025]

(2 of 3)

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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 bloodstained 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

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:46555]

[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.

¶25

I have considered the contentions.

¶26

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 bloodstained 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.

¶27

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.

¶28

Accordingly, this third bail application stands dismissed.

¶29

The observations made hereinabove are only for disposal of

¶30

the present bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.

¶31

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶32

CHARU SONI /10

Vishal @ Vishu S/O Mukesh Kewat, v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal @ Vishu S/O Mukesh Kewat, v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Man Singh S/O Kalyan Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bhagwati Kumawat W/O Parasram Kumawat Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dr Kn Modi University Vs Aarif Khan S/O Shri Yakoob Ali

Maheshchand Gupta S/O Prabhudayal Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohmmad Khokhan S/O Shri Mohammad Ali Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rameshwar S/O Shri Nathuram Vs State of Rajasthan