[2026:RJ-JP:14485] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3383/2026 Anil Kumar S/o Hariom, R/o 764/14, Indra Colony, Hansi, Police Station Hansi, District Hisar, Haryana. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Alwar). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg, Ms. Aditi Meena, Mr. Sahil Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Aarti Sharma, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 06/04/2026 1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 on behalf of accused-petitioner in connection with FIR No. 0523/2024 registered at Police Station Bhiwadi, District Bhiwadi for offence under Sections 111(2)(a), 310(2), 311 of BNS 2023 and under Section 3, 25, 27 of The Arms Act in F.I.R. and against the order dated 03.02.2026 whereby learned Trial Court dismissed the bail application filed by the accused-petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 111(2)(a), 310(2)(3), 311, 49, 55, 254, 3(5), 109(1) and under Sections 3/25, 5/27 of the Arms Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner is an innocent person and has been arrested [2026:RJ-JP:14485] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-3383/2026] without there being any cogent evidence on record against him. Counsel further submits that the petitioner has not been named in the First Information Report and has been falsely implicated as an accused by the Investigation Agency. Counsel further submits that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 26.08.2024 and co- accused namely; Mahipal @ M.P. Singh, Sahil @ Pintu and Rahul Rathi @ Tinku have already been enlarged on bail and the case of the present accused-petitioner is in no manner distinguishable from the case of the co-accused who have been enlarged on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that there is ample evidence on record to show the active participation of the petitioner in commissioning of the offence. He also submits that CCTV footage clearly speaks of the presence and active participation of the accused-petitioner. 4. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the challan papers. 5. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.08.2024 complainant Vaibhav submitted a written report at police station, Bhiwadi inter-alia alleging that on 23.08.2024 at about 07.10 p.m. he, his father Jaisingh (since deceased) and Salesman Ramnaresh were working at show room of his shop Kamlesh Jewelers. Security Guard Ajan Singh was deputed with arms at the main gate of show room. At that time, one white coloured vehicle stopped in front of the gate of show room and 05-07 persons with [2026:RJ-JP:14485] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-3383/2026] muffled face armed with weapons lathi, danda, pistol, katta alighted from it. They attacked on the security guard and snatched his gun and entered in the show room. One culprit assaulted from the butt of gun on his head. They also made deadly attack upon his father Jaisingh and Salesman Ramnaresh. They collected the gold and silver ornaments from the shop, kept it in bag and tried to go. In the meanwhile, his uncle Madhusudan also came at the show room. The culprits also made deadly attack upon Madhusudan and tried to run away from the show room. When they tried to hold the culprits, while sitting in the vehicle, they made fire, which hit him, his father Jaisingh, uncle Madhusudan and Security Guard Ajan Singh. Injured were taken to Gopinath Hospital from where they were referred to Gurugram. His father died in the way. 6. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner is that some of the co-accused have already been enlarged on bail, this Court finds that the case of the present accused-petitioner is quite distinguishable from the case of the co- accused who have been enlarged on bail, as none of the co- accused who have been enlarged on bail is being seen in the CCTV footage. 7. On perusal of the charge-sheet it is reveled that, in the description of CCTV footage the presence and active role of the accused-petitioner is being found in commissioning of the offence. Though, there may not be any specific allegation of using firearm against the accused-petitioner, however, in such like of offence all [2026:RJ-JP:14485] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-3383/2026] the accused who are involved and there is evidence in the record they are equally liable. 8. Taking into consideration the details of the CCTV footage which shows the presence and active role of the accused- petitioner in commissioning of the alleged offence, this Court at this stage is not inclined to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 9. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J SHRUTI SHARMA /48