State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp v. Connected

: Mr. Shahid Hasan, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Mohd. Haris, and Mr. Aquif Khan, Mr. Rajneesh Gupta with Mr. Aarif Mohammed, Mr. Fahad Hasan Mr. Pankaj Gupta For Respondent(s) For Complainant : : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar (2 of 6) [CRLMB-3855/2025] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR 15/09/2025 Order

1. These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioners. The accused-petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No. 435/2022 registered at Police Station Anta, District Baran for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 427, 302 & 120-B of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submit that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioner- Aabid Khan, that the accused-petitioner- Aabid Khan has falsely been involved in the aforesaid offences and that the presence of the witnesses namely- PW.1 Junaid Mirza and PW.6 Kasid Mirza at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful. The injuries sustained to witnesses were examined on 20.12.2023 by PW.3- Dr. Ashok Kumar Meena and the medical jurist has opined that injuries were inflicted within 6 hours whereas the incident occurred on

07.12.2022. Thus, it is apparent that the injuries reported by so called eye-witnesses, PW.1 Junaid Mirza and PW.6 Kasid Mirza were not related to the said incident and their presence at the place of occurrence is disputed. It is also contended that in the FIR, it is stated that persons namely- Aabid, Vaseem, Abrar and Naeem opened fire at the deceased Akhtar. However, the Police has not charge-sheeted Abrar and Naeem. It is also contended that no firearm was recovered from the possession of the petitioner Aabid and the co-accused Vaseem Ahmad. The other co- accused Vaseem Ahmad has already been enlarged on bail by this (3 of 6) [CRLMB-3855/2025] Court vide order dated 28.07.2025 and the case of the petitioners are not distinguishable from that of the other co-accused Vaseem Ahmad. It is also contended that apart from the 11 named co- accused there were 15 to 20 other persons who were also reported in the alleged assault, however, the Police has filed charge-sheet only against co-acused Vaseem, Aabid, Ubed and Maroof and Mohd. Asad @ Pintu, Asrar. It is also contended that the eye-witnesses have improved their version in their statements before the Court. It is further contended that in the FSL report, no blood stains were found and the allegations levelled in the FIR are omnibus in nature and not specific. It is further argued that the accused-petitioners are in custody since 20.12.2022 and out of total 36 cited witnesses, only 10 witnesses have been examined and the other witnesses cited by the prosecution are either hearsay or formal witnesses and further trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore the bail application of the petitioner- Aabid may be allowed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners- Maroof Ahmed and Ubed, in addition to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner Aabid Khan, has contended that the case of the petitioner- Ubed is in parity with the other co-accused Mohammad Asad @ Pintu, who has already been enlarged on the bail. The name of the co-accused Mohammad Asad @ Pintu, did not appear in the FIR and he was implicated subsequently by the police. The name of co-accused Mohammad Asad @ Pintu appeared in the statements of Junaid Mirza and Kasid Mirza, for the first time implicating him in the offence. It is further contended that the petitioners are in custody since long and trial of the case may take (4 of 6) [CRLMB-3855/2025] considerable time, therefore, the second bail applications of the petitioners Maroof Ahmed and Ubed may also be allowed.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail applications. It is argued that Junaid Mirza and Kasid Mirza in their statements have clearly stated that the petitioner- Aabid was one of the assailant and caused injuries to the deceased Akhtar with the firearm. This observation was also made in the order dated 28.07.2025, passed by this Court in case of co- accused Vaseem. It is also contended that the petitioner- Aabid is a habitual offender and against him 09 cases are pending under various provisions. It is further contended that the case of the petitioner Aabid is distinguishable from that of the other co- accused Vaseem and therefore arguments regarding parity does not sustain, therefore, the bail applications of all the petitioners may be dismissed.

6. Heard and perused the material available on record. It is not desirable to express anything on the merits of the case. Considering the fact that statements of the eye-witnesses have already been recorded, no firearm was recovered from the possession of petitioner- Aabid and other similarly placed co- accused Vaseem Ahmad has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 28.07.2025. The petitioners- Aabid Khan and Maroof Ahmed are in custody since 20.12.2022 and the other petitioner Ubed Khan is also in custody since 06.03.2024 and out of total 36 cited witnesses, only 11 witnesses have been examined and further trial of the case may take considerable time, (5 of 6) [CRLMB-3855/2025] therefore, considering the above facts, this Court deems it proper to enlarge the accused-petitioners on bail.

7. Accordingly, the instant S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.3855/2025 and S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application Nos.9927/2025 & 11280/2025, filed under Section 483 of BNSS are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners namely; 1. Aabid Khan S/o Siraj Ahmad, 2. Maroof Ahmed S/o Ayyub Khan and 3. Ubed S/o Aabid Khan, in connection with FIR No. 435/2022 registered at Police Station Anta, District Baran, shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. The concerned Court would verify the addresses of the petitioners as well as the sureties through concerned SHO and after satisfying that the given addresses in the bail bonds are correct, shall release the petitioners on bail.

8. The accused-petitioners Aabid Khan S/o Siraj Ahmad and Ubed S/o Aabid Khan are also directed to mark their presence on 25th of every month till conclusion of trial before the concerned police station. The SHO of the concerned police station is directed to maintain a regular register marking the presence of the accused-petitioners and shall send the presence report of the accused-petitioners on the same day to the concerned Trial Court without any delay. In case of any breach to the above condition, the learned Public Prosecutor shall be free to move the application (6 of 6) [CRLMB-3855/2025] against the petitioners for cancellation of the bail before the concerned Court. ANAND TANWAR /1-3 (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J