Rajasthan High Court
CRLMB/2003/2026 of AKRAM SON OF SHRI DEENU KHAN Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 13 February 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2003/2026 Akram Son Of Shri Deenu Khan, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Village Khedli Kanji, Police Station Jurhara, District Bharatpur, Present District Deeg (Raj.) (At Present Accused Petitioner
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2003/2026
Akram Son Of Shri Deenu Khan, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Village Khedli Kanji, Police Station Jurhara, District Bharatpur, Present District Deeg (Raj.) (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Central Jail Kota)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Rahul Sinsinwar
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA
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.
Order
13/02/2026
1. This bail application has been filed by the accused-petitioner under Section 483 of B.N.S.S. in connection with FIR No.220/2016 registered at Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, District Kota City, for the offence punishable under Section 413 IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused- petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and he has nothing to do with the alleged offences. Learned counsel further submits that the other co-accused persons have already been acquitted by learned Court below and the petitioner is in custody since 21.08.2025. Learned counsel also submits that charge-sheet has been filed in the matter; the case is triable by a Court of Magistrate and no recovery is required to be made from the petitioner. He also submits that trial will take considerably long time in its conclusion, so no fruitful purpose would be served by
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-2003/2026] keeping the petitioner into custody, therefore, petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner hereinabove. He submits that a supplementary charge-sheet under Section 299 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the petitioner and there are seven other criminal cases pending against him.
4. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, the fact that charge-sheet has been filed, the case is triable by a Court of Magistrate and trial will considerably take long time in its conclusion, without commenting anything on the merits / demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
5. Therefore, this bail application is allowed and the accused- petitioner, namely Akram Son Of Shri Deenu Khan, is ordered to be released on bail, provided, he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, with the following conditions:-
(i) The accused-petitioner shall not tamper with evidence or influence the witness in any manner.
(ii) The accused-petitioner shall not indulge in any criminal activity and shall not repeat any criminal offence punishable under the Law.
(iii) The accused-petitioner shall attend the hearing of the Trial Court on the date fixed by the Trial Court or as and when he is asked to appear before the Trial Court.
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-2003/2026]
(iv) Violation of any of the above conditions shall be a sufficient ground for the Trial Court to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner by this Court.
6. The accused-petitioner- Akram S/o Shri Deenu Khan, is directed to mark his presence on 20th of every month till conclusion of trial before the concerned Police Station. The SHO of the concerned Police Station shall send the presence report of the accused-petitioner to the Trial Court on the same day of every month. In case of any breach of the above condition, learned Public Prosecutor shall be free to move an application against the petitioner for cancellation of the bail before the concerned Court.
7. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J SAHIL SONI /49