MOHD RASHID SHAIKH @ RASHID BHATTA S/O BADRUDDIN SHAIKH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CRLMB/4475/2026 · 2026-06-01
Sangeeta Sharma V J
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 8336 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 8336 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2026:RJ-JP:22796] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4475/2026 Mohd Rashid Shaikh @ Rashid Bhatta S/o Badruddin Shaikh, aged about 24 Years, R/o House No. 1111, Jiyauddin Colony, Kali Ka Bhatta, Char Darwaja, Police Thana Galta Gate, Jaipur (Raj.). (At Present Confined in District Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anirudh Tyagi, Mr. Sunil Tyagi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shree Ram Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA (V.J.)
Order 01/06/2026
1. This bail application has been filed on behalf of the accused- petitioner under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No. 269/2025 registered at Police Station Adarsh Nagar, District Jaipur City (East) for the offence(s) under Section(s) 189(2), 109(1), 115(2), 126(2) of BNS and 3/25 of Arms Act.
2.
Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he is behind the bars since long. He further submits that the charge- sheet has already been filed; trial will take its own time; the injuries sustained by injured are neither fatal nor dangerous to life and no firearm has been recovered at the instance of the petitioner. Learned counsel also submits that co-accused have already been enlarged on bail, so no fruitful purpose would be
[2026:RJ-JP:22796] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4475/2026] served by keeping the accused-petitioner in custody and therefore, prays that the accused-petitioner may be granted the benefit of bail under Section 483 of BNSS. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused- petitioner hereinabove and submits that there are four other criminal antecedents against the petitioner, so the accused- petitioner may not be granted the benefit of bail under Section 483 of BNSS. 4. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the material available on record in the form of copy of charge-sheet and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the accused-petitioner that the accused-petitioner is behind the bars since 07.12.2025; that the charge-sheet against the accused-petitioner has already been filed; trial is likely to take its own time; injuries sustained by injured are neither fatal nor dangerous to life, no firearm has been recovered at the instance of petitioner; and co-accused Saif Ali @ Saifu Kala and Hitesh Kumar Mehra @ Nishu Kashyap have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 17.03.2026 and 27.01.2026 respectively, without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail. 5. Therefore, this bail application under Section 483 BNSS is accordingly allowed and the accused-petitioner Mohd Rashid Shaikh @ Rashid Bhatta S/o Badruddin Shaikh ordered to be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum
[2026:RJ-JP:22796] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4475/2026] of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the 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. 6.
It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve himself in any offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence once in a month in the concerned police station. 7. In case of any breach of the aforementioned conditions, the learned Public Prosecutor shall be free to move the application against the accused-petitioner for cancellation of the bail before the concerned Court. 8. The observation made hereinabove is only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. 9. Office is directed to send a copy of this order forthwith to the concerned trial Court through e-mail/fax, for necessary compliance. (SANGEETA SHARMA (V.J.)),J 69/SKS