[2026:RJ-JP:5149] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15992/2025 Iqbal @ Bala S/o Madan Khan, R/o Neemgarh, Andheri Devri, Police Station Beawar Sadar, District Beawar (Raj.) (At Present In Central Jail, Ajmer). ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 29/01/2026 1. The instant bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.315/2024 registered at Police Station Beawar City, District Beawar for offences punishable under Sections 302, 364, 323, 114, 201 & 120B IPC. After completion of investigation, Police filed charge-sheet in the matter before the concerned trial Court. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and there is no eye-witness of this case and the petitioner has been implicated in this case solely on the basis of interrogation of other co-accused persons. Counsel submits that material witnesses i.e. complainant/informant (PW-1) and his uncle Jodha [2026:RJ-JP:5149] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-15992/2025] Singh (PW-2) have been examined and they have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile. Counsel submits that in such circumstances, there is no evidence available on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged crime. It is contended that co-accused namely – Hamid @ Kalu, Rama @ Ram Singh, Sumer Singh @ Sameer & Razak Kathat @ Rizwan @ Pola have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court and the case of the present petitioner is identical to those of the co- accused. Counsel submits that till date, only few witnesses have been examined out of 32 cited prosecution witnesses and, thus, there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 24.07.2025 and thus, further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application. He submits that there is serious allegation against the petitioner and two more criminal cases are registered against him. Counsel further submits that this Court has already dismissed the bail applications of co-accused persons namely Firoj @ Farhu & Balveer @ Bihari @ Bavandar. Thus, looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, benefit of bail should not be granted to the petitioner. However, learned State counsel fairly concedes that the material witnesses i.e. complainant/informant (PW-1) & his uncle Jodha Singh (PW-) have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile. 4. At this stage, counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s case is not similar to the case of co-accused Firoj @ Farhu & Balveer @ Bihari @ Bavandar, whose bail applications [2026:RJ-JP:5149] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-15992/2025] were rejected by this Court. Counsel submits that the rubber strap and motorcycle used in the incident were recovered from the possession of co-accused Balveer and co-accused Firoz was involved in the abduction of deceased, whereas the allegation against the petitioner is that he was involved in the conspiracy to assault the deceased. Thus, the case of the petitioner is completely distinguishable from the case of aforesaid co-accused persons. 5. I have considered the contentions. 6. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties; material made available on record in the form of charge-sheet including the testimony of aforesaid two witnesses, who have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile; as also considering the role attributed to the petitioner; co-accused namely—Hamid @ Kalu, Rama @ Ram Singh, Sumer Singh @ Sameer & Razak Kathat @ Rizwan @ Pola have already been granted benefit of bail by this Court; and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application. 7. 7. The bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner - Iqbal @ Bala S/o Madan Khan shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the [2026:RJ-JP:5149] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-15992/2025] stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 8. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J Manoj Solanki /16