##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:5149]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15992/2025

Iqbal @ Bala S/o Madan Khan, R/o Neemgarh, Andheri Devri,

Police Station Beawar Sadar, District Beawar (Raj.) (At Present

In Central Jail, Ajmer).

----Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

29/01/2026

1. The instant bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has

been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in

connection with FIR No.315/2024 registered at Police Station

Beawar City, District Beawar for offences punishable under

Sections 302, 364, 323, 114, 201 & 120B IPC. After completion of

investigation, Police filed charge-sheet in the matter before the

concerned trial Court.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the

accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case.

Counsel submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR

and there is no eye-witness of this case and the petitioner has

been implicated in this case solely on the basis of interrogation of

other co-accused persons. Counsel submits that material

witnesses i.e. complainant/informant (PW-1) and his uncle Jodha

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 12:26:12 PM)

(Downloaded on 15/02/2026 at 06:14:55 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:5149] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-15992/2025]

Singh (PW-2) have been examined and they have not supported

the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile. Counsel

submits that in such circumstances, there is no evidence available

on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. It is

contended that co-accused namely – Hamid @ Kalu, Rama @ Ram

Singh, Sumer Singh @ Sameer & Razak Kathat @ Rizwan @ Pola

have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court and the

case of the present petitioner is identical to those of the co-

accused. Counsel submits that till date, only few witnesses have

been examined out of 32 cited prosecution witnesses and, thus,

there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future. Counsel

submits that petitioner is in custody since 24.07.2025 and thus,

further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful

purpose.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. He

submits that there is serious allegation against the petitioner and

two more criminal cases are registered against him. Counsel

further submits that this Court has already dismissed the bail

applications of co-accused persons namely Firoj @ Farhu & Balveer

@ Bihari @ Bavandar. Thus, looking to the nature and gravity of

the offence, benefit of bail should not be granted to the petitioner.

However, learned State counsel fairly concedes that the material

witnesses i.e. complainant/informant (PW-1) & his uncle Jodha

Singh (PW-) have not supported the prosecution case and they

have been declared hostile.

4. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner’s case is not similar to the case of co-accused Firoj @

Farhu & Balveer @ Bihari @ Bavandar, whose bail applications

(Uploaded on 05/02/2026 at 12:26:12 PM)

(Downloaded on 15/02/2026 at 06:14:55 AM)

[2026:RJ-JP:5149] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-15992/2025]

were rejected by this Court. Counsel submits that the rubber strap

and motorcycle used in the incident were recovered from the

possession of co-accused Balveer and co-accused Firoz was

involved in the abduction of deceased, whereas the allegation

against the petitioner is that he was involved in the conspiracy to

assault the deceased. Thus, the case of the petitioner is

completely distinguishable from the case of aforesaid co-accused

persons.

5. I have considered the contentions.

6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances

of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the parties; material made available on record in the

form of charge-sheet including the testimony of aforesaid two

witnesses,