Dismissed

Imran Alias Beda S/O Aasar Qureshi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 Sept 2025CRLMB/10289/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 483 BNSS for an applicant arrested for theft of a motorcycle and booked under Section 303(2) BNS. The court noted the charge-sheeted complicity, nine earlier criminal cases including two recent theft cases and a Section 174-A IPC proclamation-failure case, found the role prima facie sufficient, and dismissed the bail application.

What the court decided

AI extract

Imran Alias Beda S/O Aasar Qureshi Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:39000]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10289/2025

¶4

Imran Alias Beda S/o Aasar Qureshi, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Qureshi Jamalgarh, Police Station Punhana, District Nuh, Haryana. (At Present Petitioner Is Confined In Sub Jail Deeg)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Liyakat Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Choudhary, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order

¶11

16/09/2025

¶12

The present bail application under Section 483 of BNSS is filed by the applicant-accused Imran Alias Beda S/o Aasar Qureshi seeking bail in respect of a criminal case registered as FIR No.346/2025 dated 09.07.2025 registered at P.S. Kaman District - Deeg, for the offence under Sections 303(2) of BNS.

¶13

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. The applicant does not have any criminal antecedents. He also submits that the

[2025:RJ-JP:39000]

[CRLMB-10289/2025]

(2 of 3)

applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time.

¶18

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that complainant has registered a report against a middle-aged person who committed theft of motorcycle. He further submitted that present petitioner was arrested on 14.07.2025 but no recovery was effected from exclusive possession of present petitioner. He also referred pendency against the petitioner and submitted that 9 criminal cases were registered against the petitioner, mostly from year 2008 to 2017. He further submitted that petitioner is not involved in any theft case prior to current case.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. He has also filed a report received from concerned Police Station.

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties.

¶21

On the basis of report lodged by complainant Wahid about broad daylight theft of his motorcycle outside the court campus at Kaman, the report was registered against an unnamed person, but in the report a middle-aged individual was mentioned as suspect. During investigation, police arrested petitioner and after recording his information under Section 23(2) of BSA, recovered the vehicle. The police has already filed a charge sheet against the petitioner. The material on record indicates that 9 criminal cases

[2025:RJ-JP:39000]

[CRLMB-10289/2025]

(3 of 3)

besides the current case were registered against the petitioner, and for the current year, this is the second case. In the last 5 years, 2 cases under Section 379 IPC were registered. It is also evident that a case under Section 174-A IPC is registered, which clearly indicates that petitioner failed to appear despite proclamation under Section 82 of CrPC, 1973.

¶26

The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicant in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused on bail.

¶27

Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicant accused at this stage.

¶28

Accordingly, the application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Imran Alias Beda S/o Aasar Qureshi is hereby dismissed.

¶29

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶30

PREETI VALECHA /145

Imran Alias Beda S/O Aasar Qureshi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Imran Alias Beda S/O Aasar Qureshi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Lal Gupta S/O Shri Ramkunwar Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Hasim Khan S/O Saddik Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Kumar @ Madhu S/O Moolaram Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunder Singh S/O Shri Megh Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Manoharlal S/O Ramjilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohar Singh S/O Shri Arjun Vs State of Rajasthan