Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Mohd Arif vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:20386) on 23 April, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:20386]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3269/2025
1. Mohd Arif S/o Mohd. Sahid, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Jangi Chowk, Gandhinagar, P.S. Pratapnagar, District
Bhilwara
2. Rohit Charan S/o Shailendra Singh Charan, Aged About
21 Years, R/o A/412, Azadnagar, P.S. Pratapnagar, District
Bhilwara
(At present lodged In District Jail, Bhilwara)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3270/2025
1. Juber S/o Abid Kureshi, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Jangi
Chowk, Gandhinagar, P.S. Pratapnagar, District Bhilwara
(Lodged In Dist. Jail, Bhilwara)
2. Mohd. Malik @ Chikky S/o Mohd. Khalil Kureshi, Aged
About 21 Years, R/o Jangi Chowk, Gandhinagar, P.S.
Pratapnagar, District - Bhilwara
(At present lodged In Dist. Jail, Bhilwara)
----Petitioners
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hathi Singh Jodha, Public
Prosecutor
Mr. Rakesh Matoria for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
Order
23/04/2025
These applications for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439
Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioners who have been arrested
in connection with F.I.R. No.91/2025, registered at Police Station
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:44:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20386] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-3269/2025]
Pratapnagar, District – Bhilwara for offences under Sections
115(2), 126(2), 118(1), 117(2), 109 & 3(5) of the BNS.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Public
Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the
material available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that as per the
prosecution story, on 11.02.2025, Ayan Qureshi, the son of the
complainant Mayunudin, went to bring milk at around 10:00 pm. At
about 11:00 pm, the complainant was informed that his son was
assaulted. Upon Such information, complainant along with his
another son reached at the scene of crime and found that his son
was lying in the injured condition. Thereafter, his son was taken to
the hospital. His son received injuries on his body. Learned counsel
for the petitioners submitted that the accused persons have been
falsely implicated in the present case. They were not present at the
spot.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
accused-petitioners are in judicial custody since long and the trial
of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of
bail may be granted to the accused-petitioners.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel
for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.
Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that accused persons have
assaulted the son of complainant Ayan. As per the medical report of
the injured Ayan, there are 8 injuries. Out of which 4 injuries are
grievous injuries and 4 injuries are simple injuries. As per the report
of the Doctor, injury No.2 was caused by a sharp edged. All the
injuries, if collectively taken, are dangerous to life.
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:44:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20386] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-3269/2025]
Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that accused
Aarif Kureshi with 3-4 other accused persons assaulted Ayan when
he refused to marry the sister of accused Mohammad Malik.
The victim/injured in his statement recorded under Section
180 of BNSS has clearly stated that the accused persons namely Arif,
Juber, Rohit alias Charan Chikki along with three 2-4 other unknown
persons assaulted him. There are specific allegation of causing knife
injuries on his mouth on the accused Mohd. Arif and Rohit @ Chikki
and causing leg and head injuries with the iron pipe. Iron pipes,
which were used in the commission of offence have been recovered
at the instance of accused Aarif, Rohit, Juber and Mohd. Malik.
There are 3 other cases pending against the accused Mohd. Arif
and 5 other cases of similar nature of offences, are pending against
the accused Rohit Charan. They are habitual offender. Therefore, he
prayed that looking to the gravity of the offence, benefit of bail
may not be extended to these petitioners.
This Court finds that as per the report of the Doctor, the
injuries sustained by the injured Ayan Quereshi are dangerous to
life. There is head injury also. The veracity of the statement of
injured/victim Ayan Quereshi can be ascertained after his
statement is recorded in the trial Court.
Accused Mohd. Arif and Rohit Charan have criminal
antecedents and there are other criminal cases of similar nature of
offences, are pending against them.
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
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:44:21 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:20386] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-3269/2025]
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.
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
68-Ramesh Goyal, P.S./-
(Downloaded on 25/04/2025 at 11:44:21 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)