JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.162/2020 registered at Police Station, Jaitaran, District Pali for the offences under Sections 364, 302, 201, 147, 148 & 149 IPC. He has preferred this third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. The first Bail Application, being S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.14182/2020, preferred on behalf of the present petitioner was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 08.12.2020, with the liberty to file a fresh bail application after a change in circumstances; while the second Bail Application preferred on behalf of the present petitioner, being S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 4268/2022 was disposed of by this Court on 27.04.2022, with the liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court, after the expeditious deposition of the three eye-witnesses i.e. Duda Ram, Om Prakash and Naval Singh, before the learned Court below. 3. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by Mr.Dhirendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Jagdish Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, are that complainant- Manohar Singh lodged an F.I.R. bearing no. 0162/2020 at P.S. Jaitaran, Dist. Pali for the offences under Sections 364, 302, 201, 147, 148 and 149 IPC against five persons, namely Gopal Singh, Jitendra Singh, Tilokchand, Nema Ram and the present petitioner- Abhimanyu Singh. It was alleged therein that the complainant's brother Kan Singh, was working at Dharamkanta, and that on 10.05.2020, the accused arrived at the spot in a jeep with lathis, sharp edged weapons and guns and brutally assaulted the victim- Kan Singh, who subsequently succumbed to his injuries and passed away. And that, with the intention to cover up the crime, the deceased victim's body was tossed into the Nimbol river. It was also averred therein that Duda Ram and Om Prakash informed the complainant of the said incident; upon which he went to the spot and was threatened by the accused and other persons; in the meantime, one Naval Singh also arrived at the spot. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that P.W.04-Om Prakash and P.W.05-Duda Ram cannot be said to be the eye-witnesses to the alleged incident in question, as the call details and tower locations do not corroborate their claim that they were in the area where the alleged incident in question, in fact, had occurred. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that P.W.04-Om Prakash and P.W.05-Duda Ram cannot be said to be the eye-witnesses to the alleged incident in question, as the call details and tower locations do not corroborate their claim that they were in the area where the alleged incident in question, in fact, had occurred. Furthermore, it was submitted that Duda Ram was involved in illegal excavation of bajri at Nimbol river, where the alleged incident in question took place, and sought to falsely implicate the present petitioner to save his own skin. 4.1 Learned Senior Counsel also drew the attention of this Court to the testimony of Om Prakash, and submitted that it cannot be relied upon, as he was not present when the incident in question as alleged by the complainant took place, but arrived at the spot much later. 4.2 Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that although the gun was attributed to the present petitioner, there is no gun shot injury on the victim's body. 4.3 Learned Senior Counsel sought to fortify his submissions by placing reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Javed Masood & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (Criminal Appeal No. 1522/2008, decided on 09.03.2010). 4.4 Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to the order, dated 20.01.2021, passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. (Pet.) 3923/2020 (Abhimanyu Singh & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) wherein although this Court did not find a case warranting its interference in the discretion exercised by the learned Trial Court under Section 91 Cr.P.C. but in an exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. directed the learned Court below to ensure the documents in question therein, being the call details, tower locations etc. be preserved and maintained in a sealed cover in its custody, to be used by the learned Trial Court, in case such a need arose. 5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the private respondent vehemently opposed the bail application preferred by the petitioner, and jointly submitted that looking into the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the brutality of the crime in question, as a result of which the victim lost his life, the present third bail application ought not to be entertained by this Court. 6. 6. Heard learned counsel for both parties as well as perused the record of the case, alongwith the judgment cited at the Bar. 7. This Court finds that as per the testimony of P.W.07- Manoharsingh S/o Badrisingh, who in his cross-examination stated that he had received a call from P.W.04-Om Prakash, who informed him about the occurrence of the incident in question and stated that he was at the spot in question i.e. Dharamkanta. Upon receipt of such information, he went to the spot and at about 02:00/02:30 a.m., called P.W.05-Duda Ram, who in turn informed him that he himself was returning from Dharamkanta, whom Manoharsingh then met at about 02:30-03:00 a.m. who was on his motorcycle along with Naval Singh. Furthermore, he also stated that the version of events regarding the incident in question, as narrated to him by Om Prakash, was stated by him to the concerned police authorities, however the same was not written down nor signed by him. It was also deposed that in the Latoti village, there is no B.S.N.L. mobile tower and therefore it cannot be said that the story of the incident in question was cooked up or fabricated before hand. 8. This Court observes that the case law cited on behalf of the petitioner does not apply in the present case, and is distinguished from the present factual matrix as the same speaks to the impact and effect of witnesses not turning hostile or withdrawing their support to the version of the prosecution but directly supported the version of the defence. 9. This Court further observes that in the testimony rendered by P.W.04-Om Prakash under Section 164 Cr.P.C. he stated that the incident in question did not occur before him and that he did not see any of the alleged assault transpired before his eyes. However, the testimony rendered by P.W.05-Duda Ram reveals that he was called by the complainant-P.W.07-Manoharsingh at which point he arrived at the excavation site in question to find the complainant along with Naval Singh. The body of the deceased victim-Kan Singh was found in the river Nimbol at about 08:00- 08:30 a.m. 10. However, the testimony rendered by P.W.05-Duda Ram reveals that he was called by the complainant-P.W.07-Manoharsingh at which point he arrived at the excavation site in question to find the complainant along with Naval Singh. The body of the deceased victim-Kan Singh was found in the river Nimbol at about 08:00- 08:30 a.m. 10. However, this Court also observes that the testimony of P.W.05-Duda Ram, in his cross examination, under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was reserved on account of the Section 91 Cr.P.C. application preferred before the learned Court below by the present petitioner, and the same was accepted by the learned Court below which came to be challenged before this Court, which upon being dealt with vide order dated 20.01.2021 in the aforementioned S.B. Criminal Misc (Pet.) No. 3923/2020, was continued subsequently. A perusal of the same would reveal that the said witness and the present petitioner have a contentious history, and the said witness corroborated the version of events as was narrated by him to the concerned police authorities, in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 11. This Court therefore observes that although P.W.04-Om Prakash does not render assistance to the case of the prosecution, whereas on the other hand, the testimony of P.W.05-Duda Ram supports the case of the prosecution and his statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. are consistent. 12. As an upshot of the above discussion, and looking into the factual matrix of the present case especially the grievous and brutal nature of the crime in question and the allegations levelled upon the present petitioner, this Court is not inclined to grant him bail, at this stage. 13. Resultantly, the present bail application fails and the same is hereby dismissed. Needless to say, the observations made hereinabove, at this stage, shall not prejudice the case of the present petitioner, on merits, during trial.