Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 17170 (RAJ)

MUSTUFA S/O JAKAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/5672/2025 · 2025-06-11

Anand Sharma V J

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:23057] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5672/2025 1. Mustufa S/o Jakar, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Bamni, Police Station Jurhara, District Deeg. (The Accused Petitioner Is At Present Confined In Sub Jail Deeg) 2. Juned S/o Munshi, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Bamni, Police Station Jurhara, District Deeg. (The Accused Petitioner Is At Present Confined In Sub Jail Deeg) 3. Kamil S/o Sattar, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Bamni, Police Station Jurhara, District Deeg. (The Accused Petitioner Is At Present Confined In Sub Jail Deeg) 4. Afridi S/o Mayyam, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Bamni, Police Station Jurhara, District Deeg. (The Accused Petitioner Is At Present Confined In Sub Jail Deeg) 5. Maksudeen S/o Sodan, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Bamni, Police Station Jurhara, District Deeg. (The Accused Petitioner Is At Present Confined In Sub Jail Deeg) 6. Ajruddin @ Ajhar Khan S/o Ratti Kha, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Pai, Police Station Jurhara, District Deeg. (The Accused Petitioner Is At Present Confined In Sub Jail Deeg) ----Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA (V. J.) Order 11/06/2025 1. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners, at the outset submits that he got instructions to withdraw the present bail [2025:RJ-JP:23057] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-5672/2025] application with regard to accused-petitioner Nos.3 & 6 namely Kamil & Ajruddin respectively. 2. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioners, the present bail application is dismissed as withdrawn with regard to accused-petitioner Nos.3 & 6 namely Kamil & Ajruddin respectively. 3. So far as accused-petitioner Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5 namely Mustufa, Juned, Afridi & Maksudeen respectively are concerned, this bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed by the accused-petitioners in respect of F.I.R. No.90/2025 registered at Police Station Jurhera District Deeg for the offences punishable under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 317(5), 303(2), 308(2), 313 & 61(2)(A) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 66-D of I.T. Act, 2008. 4. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that there are no criminal antecedents against them. The offences alleged against them are triable by Magistrate. They have not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He further submits that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in the case. Trial is likely to take considerably long time. Hence, they have prayed for granting the bail. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application. 6. Considered the submissions made at Bar. 7. In view of above, without making any comment over the merits of the case, I am inclined to grant the bail application. 8. Accordingly, the Bail Application is hereby allowed. The accused-petitioners Mustufa S/o Jakar, Juned S/o Munshi, [2025:RJ-JP:23057] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-5672/2025] Afridi S/o Mayyam & Maksudeen S/o Sodan shall be released on bail in pursuance of F.I.R. No.90/2025 registered at Police Station Jurhera District Deeg on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- each along with two sureties of the like amount. That apart, the accused-petitioners shall also follow the conditions as under:- (i) They shall not tamper with any evidence, nor would influence the witnesses in the case. (ii) They shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. (iii) They shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend each and every date of hearing in the trial, until and unless their presence is exempted by the trial Court. 7. In case of failure of observance of the conditions, a ground for cancellation of bail would arise. (ANAND SHARMA (V. J.)),J DAKSH/153