High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur rejected a second bail application. The court held that prior observations regarding the reliability of a key prosecution witness (PW-2) remained controlling and were unaffected by subsequent witness recording during trial.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2025:RJ-JP:46346]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IInd Bail Application No. 14988/2025
Mohammed Zamir S/o Mohammed Sameer, Aged About 20 Years, Residence- 131/49 B, Begum Purav Police Station Babupurva, District Kanpur, Uttarpradesh Presently Tenant House No. 98A, Pushpa Marg, Krishna Colony, Ramgarh Mod, Police Station Brahmpuri, District Jaipur (At Present Accused-Petitioner Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
| For Petitioner(s) | : | Mr. Mohd Umar Farooq |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : | Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat,PP |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR
Order
18/11/2025
[2025:RJ-JP:46346]
[CRLMB-14988/2025]
(2 of 3)
PW-2 Sufiyan in his cross-examination has not supported the prosecution story, therefore considering the above facts, the second bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and contended that the first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 01.04.2025, after relying upon the statement of PW-2 Sufiyan. Petitioner has raised the doubt over the statement of PW-2 Sufiyan which has already been dealt in the previous order, subsequent recording of the witnesses has no impact over the observation made by the court in the order dated 01.04.2025, therefore the second bail application of the accused-petitioner deserves dismissal.
as under:-
"PW-2 Sufiyan, who is the material witness in his deposition before the concerned Court has stated against the accused-petitioners. He has specifically stated that the petitioner Mohd. Jamir caused injuries with the aid of knife to the deceased Mohd. Salman and the petitioner Mohd. Sahil, grabbed the deceased Mohd. Salman from his back and Mohd. Arslaan caused injuries with the aid of knife resulting into death of Mohd. Salman. At this juncture, it is not desirable to express anything upon the probative value of the witness PW-2 Sufiyan, therefore, considering the statement of PW-2 Sufiyan, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail."
(3 of 3)
[2025:RJ-JP:46346]
[CRLMB-14988/2025]
Considering the above facts, this court is not inclined to enlarge the accused petitioner on bail.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J
ashu /6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused-petitioner is entitled to bail in a fundsal and attempted murder case considering prior orders and new witness statements.
Whether subsequent recording of witness statements impacts the earlier judicial observations regarding the reliability of key prosecution witnesses.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohammed Zamir
State Of Rajasthan
Praveer Bhatnagar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
