Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Insaf @ Tapiya vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:34251) on 4 August, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:34251]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR

   S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13919/2024

Insaf @ Tapiya S/o Shri Salim Khan, Aged About 22 Years, R/o

Tulsi Colony , Kabir Nagar P.s. Pratapnagar, Dist Jodhpur.

(Presently Lodged In Jodhpur Jail)
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Dr. Kshamendra Mathur
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohti, PP
                                Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma
                                Mr. Aditya Sharma



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

04/08/2025

This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been

filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with

F.I.R. No.79/2021 registered at Police Station Khanda Falsa, District

Jodhpur City East, for the offences punishable under Sections 363,

143, 147, 149, 324, 341 and 307 of IPC .

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-

accused persons namely Mobin (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application

No.4136/2025) and Farjaan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application

No.13341/2024) have already been enlarged on bail by the co-

ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 22.07.2025 on the

ground that the accused persons are behind the bars from last more

than four years and the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded

[2025:RJ-JD:34251] (2 of 6) [CRLMB-13919/2024]

in the near future so also the fact that no specific allegation of

causing injuries have been levelled against them.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the

case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the

above named co-accused persons who have already been enlarged

on bail; the petitioner is in judicial custody since 27.05.2021 and the

trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit

of bail as extended by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court to the co-

accused persons, may also be extended to the present petitioner

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for

the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.

Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that in the present

case, specific allegation of inflicting injuries upon the deceased have

been levelled against the present petitioner, therefore, looking to the

seriousness of the allegations levelled against the present petitioner,

he does not deserves to be enlarged on bail by this Court. However,

learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant

were not in a position to refute the fact that the above named co-

accused persons have already been enlarged on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public

Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

The order dated 22.07.2025 passed by the co-ordinate Bench

of this Court while enlarging the above named co-accused persons on

bail is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-

"The present 2nd bail applications have been filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. on behalf of the petitioners who are in judicial custody in connection with F.I.R. No.79/2021 registered at Police Station Khandafalsa, District Jodhpur for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 364 & 120-B of IPC.

[2025:RJ-JD:34251] (3 of 6) [CRLMB-13919/2024]

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that specific allegation has been levelled against co-accused Amaan & Wasim and not against the present petitioners. The allegation of inflicting injuries to the deceases has been levelled against co-accused Amaan & Wasim. Counsel submits that the deceased received total six injuries out of which, five injuries are on the non-vital parts of the body of deceased and one injury has been caused on 9th, 10th & 11th left rib of the deceased. Counsel further submits that the petitioners are behind the bars for more than four years and trial of the case is yet pending.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8523/2024) in which while granting bail it has been observed as under:

" 9. The incident in the present case occurred on 25.06.2020 and the petitioner was arrested soon thereafter on 26.06.2020. By now, 6 co-accused have been granted bail. As the prosecution wishes to examine 17 more witnesses, the trial is unlikely to conclude on a near date.

10. Considering the above and to avoid the situation of the trial process itself being the punishment particularly when there is presumption of innocence under the Indian jurisprudence, we deem it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner - Balwinder Singh. It is ordered accordingly. Appropriate bail conditions be imposed by the learned trial court."

A coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Umesh Vyas vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. II Bail Application No.14958/2022), vide order dated 17.03.2023, also observed as follows:

"The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Abdul Majeed Lone Vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir [Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3961/2022], Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.668/2020), Tapan Das Vs. Union of India [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5617/2021], Kulwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.5187/2019], Ghanshyam Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal)

[2025:RJ-JD:34251] (4 of 6) [CRLMB-13919/2024]

No.5397/2019], Nadeem Vs. State of UP [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.1524/2022] and Mukesh Vs. The State of Rajasthan [Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4089/2021] has granted bail to the accused persons, against whom the allegations are of transporting or possessing narcotic contraband above commercial quantity, on the ground of custody period and taking into consideration the fact that the trial against the said accused persons will take time in completion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has ordered for release of the accused persons who were in custody from two years to four years. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow this fifth bail application solely on the ground of custody period of the accused petitioner and keeping in view the fact that the trial against him has not been completed till date.

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this third bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Umesh Vyas S/o Shri Ganeshlal Ji shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.15/2019 of Police Station Charbhuja, District Rajsamand provided he executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial."

The petitioners are in judicial custody since 22.05.2021 and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time. With these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused- petitioners.

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer of bail. Learned counsel for the complainant submits that a specific allegation has been levelled against the present petitioners and there are criminal antecedents registered against them,

[2025:RJ-JD:34251] (5 of 6) [CRLMB-13919/2024]

therefore, the benefit of bail may not be granted to the accused- petitioners.

I have considered the arguments advanced before me and gone through the material available on record.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly looking to the fact that the petitioners are behind the bars since 22.05.2021 and no specific allegation has been levelled against them, therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioners.

Accordingly, the second bail applications filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. are allowed and it is directed that petitioners - (1) Mobin S/o Shri Mohammad Farook & (2) Farjaan S/o Shaukat Khan shall be released on bail in connection with F.I.R. No.79/2021 registered at Police Station Khandafalsa, District Jodhpur provided each of them executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for their appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial."

Having considered the rival submissions and the facts and

circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the co-accused

persons have already been enlarged on bail by the co-ordinate Bench

of this Court and the petitioner is behind the bars since 27.05.2021,

this Court, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the

case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is

allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Insaf @ Tapiya

S/o Shri Salim Khan arrested in connection with F.I.R.

No.79/2021 registered at Police Station Khanda Falsa, District

Jodhpur City East, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any

other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-