[2026:RJ-JP:527]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15053/2025 Rafiq S/o Israel, R/o Chhapar Police Station Tapukda District Kharthal-Tijara Raj (At Present Sub Jail Kishangarh District Khairthal-Tijara Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Sharam Ganthola For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP For Complainant(s) : Mr. Aayush Goyal with Mr. Lucky Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

08/01/2026

1. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.332/2024 registered at Police Station Tapukada, District Bhiwadi for offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 333, 109(1) & 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023 and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 333, 351(2) 103(1), 61(2)(a) & 239 of BNS and Sections 3/25, 5/27 &

9 of Arms Act.

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that admittedly, at the time of alleged incident, petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. Counsel submits that petitioner has been made accused on the basis of call location of his mobile phone and on the strength of statements of four witnesses, which were recorded after sixty eight days of alleged incident, wherein they have deposed that after committing the murder, co-accused of this case, ran away with the petitioner on his motorcycle. Counsel submits that no incriminating article has been recovered at the instance of petitioner. Counsel submits that this fact cannot be ignored that co-accused, who were involved in the murder of the deceased, are the relative of the petitioner, therefore, petitioner's talk with co-accused has no significance in this case. It is submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. It is further submitted that petitioner is in custody since 16.07.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the bail application. They submit that petitioner was part of the conspiracy.

4. I have considered the contentions.

5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by counsel for the petitioner as well as the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, as also the fact that admittedly, petitioner was not present at the place of incident at the time of alleged incident; there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this bail application.

6. This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Rafiq S/o Israel shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

7. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J LALIT MOHAN /25