[2026:RJ-JP:2863] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No. 16403/2025 Aslam Sher Khan @ Chintu S/o Ahmed Ali, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Mayur House Bangali Coloni Gumanpura Kota Rajasthan. (At Present Confined At Central Jail Kota). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s) : : Mr. Amit Punia, PP Mr. Rajneesh Gupta HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 16/01/2026 1. This second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.478/2024 registered at Police Station Nayapura, District Kota City for offences punishable under Sections 232(1), 126(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this case for offences punishable under Sections 232(1), 126(2), 351(2), 351(3), 352, 111(2)(b), 3(5) and 61(2) of the BNS, 2023. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on merits vide order dated 25.09.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail before the learned trial Court after recording testimony of the complainant. [2026:RJ-JP:2863] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-16403/2025] Thereafter, bail application was filed before the trial Court however, same has been dismissed vide order dated 01.12.2025. Thus, this second bail application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is innocent and he has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that bare perusal of the FIR would reveal that petitioner is not named in the FIR. It has been alleged in the FIR that complainant was attacked by gang members of the petitioner so as to prevent him from testifying and giving evidence against the petitioner in other criminal case (No.198/2024) registered at Police Station Borkheda, District Kota City. Counsel submits that now, petitioner has been examined during the course of trial as PW-01 and as such there is no chance of tampering with the evidence or threatening the complainant. Counsel submits that at the time when the impugned FIR was lodged, the accused- petitioner was lodged at Central Jail Kota in connection with another criminal case (No.296/2024) registered at Police Station Gumanpura Kota City for offences under Sections 384, 341, 323, 365, 392, 34 and 120B IPC and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. The petitioner was lodged at Central Jail Kota, in connection with the aforesaid case since 30.07.2024 and his custody was sought from the Central Jail, Kota for interrogation purpose of the present case and on the same day, vide separate arrest memo, he was arrested in the present case. Counsel further argues that the impugned FIR has been lodged implicating the accused-petitioner with the sole motive and object to continue his custody. Petitioner is in judicial [2026:RJ-JP:2863] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-16403/2025] custody since long and no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars. He further submits that only on the basis of previous criminal antecedents, an accused cannot be made to suffer criminal prosecution in another case. The prosecution has to establish prima facie involvement of the accused-petitioner in a particular case. It is prayed that the bail application may be accepted and the petitioner may be released on bail. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the bail application. It is argued that petitioner is a habitual offender and is a hardcore criminal as 20 other cases have been registered against him. It is submitted that complainant was attacked by gang members of the petitioner so as to prevent him from testifying and giving evidence against the petitioner. Further, the earlier bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by this Court after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. As such, there is no substantial change in circumstances warranting the entertainment of this second bail application, except for the fact that the complainant has been examined. They, thus, crave dismissal of the bail application. 5. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that although a number of cases have been registered against the petitioner, the benefit of bail has been extended to the petitioner in four cases by this Court as well as by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. In one case, this Court has granted interim protection by directing the investigating authorities not to take any coercive steps against the petitioner, and in another case, the [2026:RJ-JP:2863] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-16403/2025] petitioner has been acquitted by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. 6. I have considered the contentions. 7. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the material available on record, as also the fact that complainant has been examined during the course of trial as PW-01 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 second bail application. 8. This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner – Aslam Sher Khan @ Chintu S/o Ahmed Ali shall be released on bail provided, he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the 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. 9. Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, it is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till conclusion of the trial. It is further directed that [2026:RJ-JP:2863] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-16403/2025] petitioner shall share his mobile number (in use) to the trial Court and investigating agency. He shall keep his mobile phone in active mode and shall not switch it off for longer period intentionally. 10. Concerned SHO shall enter attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard. 11. If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court. 12. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. 13. 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 GAUTAM JAIN/19