Rajasthan High Court
CRLMB/11395/2026 of IMLAK URF IMRAN S/O KAMRUDEEN Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 22 July 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11395/2026 URN: CRLMB / 21054U / 2026 Imlak Urf Imran S/o Kamrudeen, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Kosikala Gurujganj Colony, Batasa Bazaar, Kosikala, Police Station Kosikala, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11395/2026
URN: CRLMB / 21054U / 2026
Imlak Urf Imran S/o Kamrudeen, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Kosikala Gurujganj Colony, Batasa Bazaar, Kosikala, Police Station Kosikala, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail Ajmer).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Jiya Ur Rahman
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Naresh Gupta, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Judgment / Order
22/07/2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The present bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 02.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Kishangarh, Ajmer, in Criminal Misc. Application No.176/2026, whereby the bail application of the petitioner was rejected in connection with F.I.R. No.31/2026, Police Station-Bander Sindri, District-Ajmer for the offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 316(3), 303(2), 61(2), 3(5) of BNS, 2023.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 30.04.2026. He further submits that the challan in the case has already been filed, offences are triable by Magistrate, and the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long
(2 of 4) [CRLMB-11395/2026] time. He further submits that there are three cases reported to be pending against the petitioner of different nature.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per the FIR, the allegation of the complainant is that they had entrusted a truck carrying mobile phones to Saket, who was an employee/driver of the transport company to whom the truck had been entrusted. He further submits that it is alleged that the truck did not reach its destination. Thereafter, a search was conducted, during which the truck was found parked on a highway. It is further alleged that the truck was taken by the complainant company to its warehouse and upon examination, it was found that the mobile phones were missing. As per the FIR, it is also alleged that when the truck was found on the highway, its locking system had already been broken.
4. Learned counsel further submits that there is no explanation from the complainant as to why, without informing the police, they took the truck from the place where it was found to their warehouse. He submits that the alleged theft could also have taken place during that course.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that allegation against the present petitioner is having helped the main accused Saket in disposing of this mobile which were entrusted to the Saket. He further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR. He further submits that the co-accused Munfed has already been enlarged on bail by this Bench in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.9993/2026 vide order dated 14.07.2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case of the petitioner is on no lesser footing than that of
(3 of 4) [CRLMB-11395/2026] the co-accused Munfed. Therefore, it is prayed that the petitioner may kindly be enlarged on bail.
6. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the present bail application.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
8. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and upon a consideration of the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 30.04.2026; offences are triable by Magistrate; the challan has been filed; the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long time; there are three cases reported to be pending against the petitioner of different nature, and further the fact the main allegation is that the truck carrying the mobile phones had been entrusted to Saket, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted. It is also a matter of record that the FIR was lodged only after the truck was found on the Highway in an open condition and was thereafter taken to the complainant's warehouse without informing the police
9. Consequently, the bail application is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner namely-Imlak Urf Imran S/o Kamrudeen arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.31/2026, Police Station-Bander Sindri, District-Ajmer, shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/ (Rs. One Lakh Only) with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) each, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, with the stipulation that he shall appear before the said Court on all dates
(4 of 4) [CRLMB-11395/2026] of hearing and as and when called upon to do so until completion of the trial, subject to the following conditions:
(i) The petitioner shall not leave country without the permission of the Court;
(ii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected;
(iii) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (BIPIN GUPTA),J 64/MAHIMA