Shahbaj S/O Intjar Vs State of Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:40310]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II^nd Bail Application No. 12591/2025

Shahbaj S/o Intjar, R/o Village Naujhil Tuli Mohalla, Police Station Naujhil, District Mathura (U.p.), At Present B-72, Nagtalai Kalli Ka Bhatta, Kacchi Basti, Delhi Road, Police Station Galta Gate, Jaipur (Raj.) (At Present In Central Jail Jaipur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Smt. Heena W/o Akhil Ahmad, R/o B-4, House Of Salim, Nagtalai Kalli Ka Bhatta, Galta Gate Police Station Galta Gate, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Praveen Kumar Purohit
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP
	Mr. Satyam Khandelwal

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

¶12

Order

¶13

06/10/2025

¶14

Instant second bail application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of BNSS in connection with FIR No. 231/2023 registered at Police Station Galta Gate, District Jaipur City (North) for offence(s) under Sections 143, 323, 341, 452 and 302 IPC.

¶15

This second bail application has been filed after recording statements of material witnesses of prosecution and in view of the liberty granted by this Court, while rejecting the first bail application vide order dated 18.03.2024.

¶16

Heard counsel for petitioner, counsel for complainant as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

[2025:RJ-JP:40310]

[CRLMB-12591/2025]

(2 of 3)

The submission of counsel for petitioner is that petitioner is in custody since 11.07.2023; main prosecution witnesses including deceased’s wife, parents and eye-witnesses have been examined; as per postmortem report, deceased- Akeel Ahamed died on account of head injury, which has not specifically attributed to petitioner; no weapon has been recovered from the petitioner; there are omnibus allegations against several persons including Amir Khan, Zakir, Raja, Bunty, Intzar, Julie, Sajjo, Moti and present petitioner-Shahbaj, to enter into the house of deceased and assaulted deceased; co-accused Amir Khan has already been released on bail by this Court, vide order dated 15.09.2025 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II^nd Bail Application No. 10481/2025; there are no criminal antecedents of petitioner; there is no possibility to temper with/ influence the remaining prosecution witnesses and conclusion of trial will take considerable time, therefore, in such circumstances, petitioner be released on bail.

¶21

Counsel for complainant and learned Public Prosecutor have opposed the bail application. Counsel for complainant pointed out that petitioner was one of the member of the unlawful assembly that assaulted the deceased, by entering into his house. He submits that mother of deceased has taken name of petitioner, which makes the case of petitioner distinguishable from that of coaccused Amir Khan, who has been released on bail by this Court. 6. Having considered the rival submissions of both the parties, it appears that statements of material prosecution witnesses including wife & parents of deceased and eye-witnesses, namely, Shamshad & Shahbaz have been recorded; there is no recovery of any weapon from the petitioner and head injury on deceased is

[2025:RJ-JP:40310]

[CRLMB-12591/2025]

(3 of 3)

not specifically attributed to petitioner; petitioner is in custody since 11.07.2023; Co-accused Aamir Khan has already been released on bail; there are no previous criminal antecedents of petitioner; and criminal trial may take considerable time to conclude since out of 38 prosecution witnesses, only 7-8 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, but without commenting on merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to release petitioner on bail.

¶26

Accordingly, the second bail application is allowed and it is ordered that accused-petitioner Shahbaj S/o Intjar shall be released on bail provided, he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with two sureties of Rs.25,000/-, out of which, one should be local surety as the petitioner is resident of District Mathura, U.P., to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so. 8. However, in addition to the usual terms and conditions, it is hereby directed that:

¶27

(i) Accused-petitioner shall not leave District Jaipur without prior permission of the trial Court.

¶28

(ii) Accused-petitioner shall not induce or influence or temper with any prosecution evidence/witness.

¶29

(iii) In case, accused-petitioner is found involved in any offence, during bail granted by this Court or breach of conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail, granted by this Court.

¶30

(SUDESH BANSAL),J

¶31

Sachin/1

Shahbaj S/O Intjar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shahbaj S/O Intjar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijaypal Jakar S/O Late Shri Manphool Ram Jakhar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Kesar Devi W/O. Late Kishorelal Ghosi, Vs State of Rajasthan

Soniya Kumari D/O Balveer , Vs Ravindra Kumar Son of Shri Keshav Singh

Jaisaram S/O Shri Kanaram, Vs Sohan S/O Noparam

Gayatri Devi W/O Late Kudeep Singh Vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Chairman Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Vs Sunder Bai Wife of Shri Babu Lal