Allowed

Ahamad Son of Nasru v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Oct 2025CRLMB/13050/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court allowed a bail application filed under Section 483 BNS. Considering the petitioner's charges are similar to those of co-accused who already obtained bail, the court granted bail with a personal bond and two surety bonds.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each.

Ahamad Son of Nasru Vs the State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:41555]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13050/2025

¶4

Ahamad Son of Nasru, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Bhandara, Police Station Jurhara, District Deeg. ( At Present In Sub Jail Kaman, Deeg)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Chauhan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia-Addl.G.A cum PP For Complainant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Khan

¶10

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

13/10/2025

¶13

This bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. has been filed by petitioner in connection with the FIR No. 431/2024 registered at Police Station Kaman, District Deeg wherein he was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 103(2) and 307 of BNS.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that he along with other co-accused persons namely Nasru and Arfina forced the deceased to commit suicide and indulgence of bail has already been granted to them. Counsel submits that the case of the petitioner is at par with the case of the co-accused persons, therefore indulgence of bail may be granted to the petitioner as well.

¶15

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application but they are not in a

[2025:RJ-JP:41555]

[CRLMB-13050/2025]

(2 of 2)

position to controvert the submission made by counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record.

¶21

Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that the allegations are identical and similar against all three accused persons and out of three persons, two co-accused persons have already been granted indulgence of bail and also considering fact that petitioner is in custody since the date of his arrest and trial will take its own time to conclude, without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, this Court deems it just and appropriate to grant indulgence of bail to the petitioner under Section 483 BNSS. 6. Accordingly, this bail application under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Ahamad Son of Nasru, arrested in connection with aforementioned FIR, may be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶22

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶23

Ashu/123

Ahamad Son of Nasru v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ahamad Son of Nasru v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramveer S/O Somraj, Vs State of Rajasthan

Juvenile P @ P S/O B, Vs State of Rajasthan

Kaushal Kumar Garg S/O Late Sh. Ramswaroop Garg Vs Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Karan Yadav S/O Bharat Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Ved Prakash Yadav Son of Ramdev Yadav Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Shadab Ali @ Saddu S/O Jakir Ali Vs State of Rajasthan