Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Amir Khan vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:19555) on 23 April, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:19555]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 137/2025
Amir Khan S/o Munna Khan, aged about 24 years, R/o Ward
No.10, Mirjwala, Police Station Matali Rathan, Tehsil & District -
Sri Ganganagar.
(Lodged in District Jail, Sriganganagar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1808/2025
Navab Khan @ Aasif Khan @ Sukha S/o Rafeek Khan, aged
about 23 years, R/o H.No. 198, Pani Wali Tanki Ke Pass Labour
Colony, Purani Abadi, Tehsil & District Sriganganagar
(Presently lodged in Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar)
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mudit Nagpal
Mr. Deepak Pareek for Mr. J.S.
Bhaleria
Mr. Sunil Chhaba
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, Public
Prosecutor
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Order
23/04/2025
These applications for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439
Cr.P.C.) have been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested
in connection with F.I.R. No.543/2024, registered at Police Station
(Downloaded on 23/04/2025 at 10:09:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19555] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-137/2025]
Jawahar Nagar, District – Sri Ganganganagar, for offences under
Sections 308(4), 109(1), 111(2)(a), 61(2)(a) of BNS, 2023 and
Sections 3/25, 5/25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the
case of the prosecution, the complainant Shokat Ali has given a
written report before the SHO, P.S. Jawahar Nagar to the effect
that he is a contractor of garden of Kinnu (fruit). On 24.05.2024
he received a WhatsApp call on his mobile phone from WhatsApp
No. +1(604)902-6574 and the caller has threatened him and
demanded a bribe of Rs.1 crore and cut the call. Thereafter he
received another WhatsApp call from WhatsApp No.
+1(778)9330317, threatening him to give the bribe amount
otherwise he or his family member will be killed. On 25.05.2024 a
WhatsApp call from WhatsApp No.+1(778)9330317 was made,
which he did not receive then a WhatsApp message demanding
bribe by the evening and of threatening with dire consequence,
was sent from that number, which message he received. On
13.09.2024 he went outside for his work then at around 1:40 pm
his younger brother informed him on mobile phone that two
persons came on motorcycle in the Gali (street) in front of his
house who fired gun shot at the window of his house. When they
checked the CCTV footage, they saw that two persons muffled
face came on black coloured motorcycle and the person on the
rear seat of the motorcycle fired at the house and thereafter they
ran away. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
(Downloaded on 23/04/2025 at 10:09:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19555] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-137/2025]
accused-petitioners are not involved in the commission of the
crime. They have been falsely implicated in the present case.
They are not member of the gang which demanded bribe from the
complainant. Only a helmet was recovered from the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that
three co-accused namely Arjun, Gagandeep and Jaswant have
been enlarged on bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 16.12.2024, passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail
Applications No.13384/2024, 12859/2024 and 12860/2024.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that
the accused persons are in judicial custody since long and the trial
of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the accused-
petitioners may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed
the bail applications and submitted that accused-petitioners have
committed a heinous crime. The allegation of firing gun shot is at
accused Nawab. One helmet which the accused Amir Khan was
wearing at the time of the commission of offence has been
recovered which was produced by Mandeep Singh, the owner of
the motorcycle. Both the accused have been seen on the spot in
the CCTV footage. Both the accused persons are the member of
the gang of Laurance Vishnoi and accused Rohit Godara has
instructed them to commit such crime. A pistol of .32 bore has
been recovered at the instance of accused Nawab Khan. The
offences alleged against the petitioners are against the society.
(Downloaded on 23/04/2025 at 10:09:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19555] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-137/2025]
Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that on the co-
accused Arjun, Gagandeep and Jaswant, there are allegations of
recce of the house of the complainant and their role is different
than that of the present accused persons.
Therefore, he prayed that looking to the gravity of the
offence, benefit of bail may not be extended to the petitioners.
From perusal of the seizure memo of the motorcycle bearing
Registration No.RJ-13 CS 1500 and one black helmet, it is evident
that the aforesaid motorcycle and helmet belonged to PW-1 –
Mandeep Singh and the accused-petitioner Amir Khan took the
said motorcycle and helmet on the pretext of getting medicines to
his wife who was ill. Mandeep Singh produced the said motorcycle
and helmet which were seized. Accused Amir Khan in his
disclosure statement also admitted the fact of using aforesaid
motorcycle and helmet in the commission of crime which he
borrowed from Mandeep Singh.
As per the analysis of CDR and CCTV footage, presence of
accused persons have been seen at the place of incident and their
mobile location has also found at the spot.
This Court finds that at this stage, when the Investigating
Officer and other relevant prosecution witnesses are yet to be
examined, it cannot be said that the accused-petitioners have not
committed any offence. The involvement of the accused-
petitioners in the commission of offence can be ascertained only
after recording of the statements of the witnesses. No comment
can be made on the merits/demerits of the case at this stage.
(Downloaded on 23/04/2025 at 10:09:01 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:19555] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-137/2025]
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
the gravity of the offence, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to
the accused-petitioners.
The bail applications are, therefore, rejected at this stage.
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),J
41-42-Ramesh Goyal, PS/-
(Downloaded on 23/04/2025 at 10:09:01 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)