[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Insaf @ Tapiya vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:34251) on 4 August, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:34251]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13919/2024
Insaf @ Tapiya S/o Shri Salim Khan, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Tulsi Colony , Kabir Nagar P.s. Pratapnagar, Dist Jodhpur.
(Presently Lodged In Jodhpur Jail)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Kshamendra Mathur
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohti, PP
Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma
Mr. Aditya Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
04/08/2025
This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been
filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with
F.I.R. No.79/2021 registered at Police Station Khanda Falsa, District
Jodhpur City East, for the offences punishable under Sections 363,
143, 147, 149, 324, 341 and 307 of IPC .
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-
accused persons namely Mobin (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.4136/2025) and Farjaan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application
No.13341/2024) have already been enlarged on bail by the co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.07.2025 on the
ground that the accused persons are behind the bars from last more
than four years and the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:54:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34251] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-13919/2024]
in the near future so also the fact that no specific allegation of
causing injuries have been levelled against them.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the
above named co-accused persons who have already been enlarged
on bail; the petitioner is in judicial custody since 27.05.2021 and the
trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit
of bail as extended by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court to the co-
accused persons, may also be extended to the present petitioner
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for
the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.
Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in the present
case, specific allegation of inflicting injuries upon the deceased have
been levelled against the present petitioner, therefore, looking to the
seriousness of the allegations levelled against the present petitioner,
he does not deserves to be enlarged on bail by this Court. However,
learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant
were not in a position to refute the fact that the above named co-
accused persons have already been enlarged on bail.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public
Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
The order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench
of this Court while enlarging the above named co-accused persons on
bail is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-
“The present 2nd bail applications have been filed under
Section 483 B.N.S.S. on behalf of the petitioners who are in
judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No.79/2021
registered at Police Station Khandafalsa, District Jodhpur
for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148,
302/149, 364 & 120-B of IPC.
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:54:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34251] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-13919/2024]
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
specific allegation has been levelled against co-accused
Amaan & Wasim and not against the present petitioners.
The allegation of inflicting injuries to the deceases has been
levelled against co-accused Amaan & Wasim. Counsel
submits that the deceased received total six injuries out of
which, five injuries are on the non-vital parts of the body of
deceased and one injury has been caused on 9th, 10th & 11th
left rib of the deceased. Counsel further submits that the
petitioners are behind the bars for more than four years
and trial of the case is yet pending.
In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed
reliance on the judgment of Honb’le Supreme Court in the
case of Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (Special
Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8523/2024) in which while
granting bail it has been observed as under:
” 9. The incident in the present case
occurred on 25.06.2020 and the petitioner
was arrested soon thereafter on
26.06.2020. By now, 6 co-accused have
been granted bail. As the prosecution
wishes to examine 17 more witnesses, the
trial is unlikely to conclude on a near date.
10. Considering the above and to avoid the
situation of the trial process itself being the
punishment particularly when there is
presumption of innocence under the Indian
jurisprudence, we deem it appropriate to
grant bail to the petitioner – Balwinder
Singh. It is ordered accordingly.
Appropriate bail conditions be imposed by
the learned trial court.”
A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Umesh
Vyas vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail
Application No.14958/2022), vide order dated 17.03.2023, also
observed as follows:
“The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Abdul Majeed Lone Vs. Union Territory of
Jammu and Kashmir [Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No.3961/2022], Amit Singh
Moni Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
(Criminal Appeal No.668/2020), Tapan Das
Vs. Union of India [Special Leave to Appeal
(Criminal) No.5617/2021], Kulwant Singh
Vs. State of Punjab [Special Leave to
Appeal (Criminal) No.5187/2019],
Ghanshyam Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan
[Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal)(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:54:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34251] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-13919/2024]No.5397/2019], Nadeem Vs. State of UP
[Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal)
No.1524/2022] and Mukesh Vs. The State
of Rajasthan [Special Leave to Appeal
(Criminal) No.4089/2021] has granted bail
to the accused persons, against whom the
allegations are of transporting or
possessing narcotic contraband above
commercial quantity, on the ground of
custody period and taking into
consideration the fact that the trial against
the said accused persons will take time in
completion. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has
ordered for release of the accused persons
who were in custody from two years to four
years. Learned Public Prosecutor has
opposed the bail application.
Having regard to the totality of the
facts and circumstances of the case, I deem
it appropriate to allow this fifth bail
application solely on the ground of custody
period of the accused petitioner and keeping
in view the fact that the trial against him has
not been completed till date.
Accordingly, without expressing any
opinion on the merits of the case, this third
bail application filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that
petitioner Umesh Vyas S/o Shri Ganeshlal Ji
shall be released on bail in connection with
FIR No.15/2019 of Police Station Charbhuja,
District Rajsamand provided he executes a
personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with
two sound and solvent sureties of
Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of
learned trial court for his appearance before
that court on each and every date of hearing
and whenever called upon to do so till the
completion of the trial.”
The petitioners are in judicial custody since 22.05.2021
and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time. With
these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed
that the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-
petitioners.
Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for
the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer of bail.
Learned counsel for the complainant submits that a specific
allegation has been levelled against the present petitioners and
there are criminal antecedents registered against them,
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:54:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34251] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-13919/2024]
therefore, the benefit of bail may not be granted to the accused-
petitioners.
I have considered the arguments advanced before me and
gone through the material available on record.
Having regard to the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the fact that
the petitioners are behind the bars since 22.05.2021 and no
specific allegation has been levelled against them, therefore,
without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I
deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioners.
Accordingly, the second bail applications filed under
Section 483 B.N.S.S. are allowed and it is directed that
petitioners – (1) Mobin S/o Shri Mohammad Farook & (2)
Farjaan S/o Shaukat Khan shall be released on bail in
connection with F.I.R. No.79/2021 registered at Police Station
Khandafalsa, District Jodhpur provided each of them executes a
personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of
Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for
their appearance before that court on each and every date of
hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of
the trial.”
Having considered the rival submissions and the facts and
circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the co-accused
persons have already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench
of this Court and the petitioner is behind the bars since 27.05.2021,
this Court, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the
case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is
allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Insaf @ Tapiya
S/o Shri Salim Khan arrested in connection with F.I.R.
No.79/2021 registered at Police Station Khanda Falsa, District
Jodhpur City East, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any
other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-
and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned
trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date
of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the
trial.
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:54:40 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:34251] (6 of 6) [CRLMB-13919/2024]
It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations
made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail
application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
516-divya/-
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:54:40 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link