[2025:RJ-JP:39725] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9654/2025 1. Sahil Khan S/o Jamrudeen, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Ko- takhurdh Police Station Ramgarh, District Alwar (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Alwar). 2. Gaffur S/o Najira, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Kotakhurdh Police Station Ramgarh, District Alwar (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Alwar). ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumer Singh Ola For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Assistant GA Mr. Manish Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 20/09/2025 1. This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.643/2023 registered at Police Station Ramgarh (Alwar), District Alwar for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 341, 323, 506, 452, 504, 427 & 395 of IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 341, 323, 506, 504, 449 & 325 of IPC and Sections 3/25, 3/27, 5/25 & 5/27 of Arms Act. [2025:RJ-JP:39725] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-9654/2025] 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. He submits during the course of trial, 12 witnesses have been examined and it appears from their testimony that no allegation has been levelled against the petitioners of causing firearm injury on the person of the deceased and same has been attributed to co-accused persons. It is submitted that similarly situated co- accused person namely- Imran Khan has already been granted benefit of bail by this court. It is submitted that no firearm has been recovered from the possession of petitioner- Sahil Khan and recovery of ‘Katta’ at the instance of petitioner- Gaffur is of no significance as same has been recovered on the basis of joint information furnished by several accused persons. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner- Sahil Khan is in custody since 07.11.2024 whereas petitioner- Gaffur is in custody since 22.11.2023 and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the bail application. It is submitted that apart from death of one person, 16 other persons have received firearm injury which shows that there was indiscriminate firing and it is well established from the testimony of witnesses that petitioners were present at the place of incident along with firearm and they actively participated in commission of crime. It is submitted that number of assailants were involved in the incident therefore, it is not possible for the witnesses to [2025:RJ-JP:39725] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-9654/2025] describe specific role of each and every assailant in their testimony. So far as co-accused person namely- Imran Khan who has been granted benefit of bail is concerned, it has been stated by all that witnesses in their cross-examination that Imran Khan was not involved in the incident and they did not support the prosecution case to the extent of Imran Khan. 4. I have considered the contentions. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially considering the material available on record including testimony of the prosecution witnesses recorded so far and the fact that as per the testimony of witnesses, presence of the petitioners is well established at the place of incident and it has been alleged in very clear terms that petitioners as well as other co-accused persons opened fire due to which one person died and 16 other persons have received firearm injuries. According to Section 149 of IPC, even presence in unlawful assembly, but with active mind, to achieve common object, makes such person vicariously liable for acts of unlawful assembly thus, looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail. 6. Accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed. 7. It is suffice to say that while considering the application for bail, deep appreciation of evidence and testimony of witnesses is avoided and same shall be considered by the trial court at the appropriate stage of proceedings. [2025:RJ-JP:39725] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-9654/2025] 8. The observations made hereinabove are only for disposal of the bail application and would not prejudice the trial in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /31