Aamir Khan S/O Rujdar Vs State of Rajasthan — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2025)

Aamir Khan S/O Rujdar Vs State of Rajasthan — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS allowed: in the event of arrest in connection with FIR No. 201/2024, P.S. Khoh, District Deeg, the petitioner Aamir Khan is to be released on bail on a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/-, subject to conditions of availability for interrogation, abstention from inducement/threat/promise, and not leaving India without previous permission of the court. Nothing expressed on the merits of the case.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, apprehending arrest in FIR No. 201/2024 (P.S. Khoh, District Deeg) for offences under the BNS and the IT Act, is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS.

Court's answer

On consideration of the FIR allegations and counsel's contentions, noting that recoveries of sim cards and mobile phones were effected from co-accused already enlarged on bail, that custodial investigation of the petitioner is not required, that the offences alleged are exclusively triable by Magistrate, and that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation, the court deemed it just and proper to allow the anticipatory bail application, expressly without expressing anything on the merits of the case.

Ratio / Principle

In the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with FIR No. 201/2024 (P.S. Khoh, District Deeg), he shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/-, to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, subject to conditions: availability for interrogation as and when required; no inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts; and not leaving India without previous permission of the court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), single Judge (Praveer Bhatnagar, J.), order dated 03/03/2025 in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2567/2025: anticipatory bail under Section 482 BNSS granted to Aamir Khan, apprehending arrest in FIR No. 201/2024, P.S. Khoh, District Deeg, for offences punishable under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 317(5), 313, 303(2) and 61(2)(a) of the BNS and Section 66-D of the IT Act. Grounds: recoveries of sim cards and mobile phones were effected from co-accused already enlarged on bail; custodial investigation of the petitioner held not required; offences exclusively triable by Magistrate; petitioner ready and willing to cooperate with investigation; nothing expressed on merits. Bail directed on personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/-, with standard conditions (availability for interrogation, no inducement/threat/promise, no departure from India without previous permission of the court). No precedent cited.

[2025:RJ-JP:9059]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2567/2025

Aamir Khan S/o Rujdar, R/o Garhi Mewat, Police Station Khoh, District Deeg (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order

03/03/2025

Apprehending his arrest in connection with FIR No. 201/2024 registered at Police Station Khoh, District Deeg for the offence(s) under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 317(5), 313, 303(2) and 61(2)(a) of BNS and Sections 66-D of IT Act, the petitioner has preferred this anticipatory bail application under Section 482 BNSS.

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the recovery of sim cards and mobile phones etc. were effected from the possession of other co-accused, who have already been enlarged on bail. He further submits that custodial investigation of the accused petitioner is not required. The offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are exclusively tribale by Magistrate and petitioner is

[2025:RJ-JP:9059]

[CRLMB-2567/2025]

(2 of 3)

ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation. Therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail applications.

I have considered the overall allegations levelled in the FIR and contentions made by the counsel for the parties. 5. Looking to the fact that recovery of sim cards and mobile phones etc. were effected from the possession of other coaccused, who have already been enlarged on bail. Custodial investigation of the accused petitioner is not required. The offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner are exclusively triable by Magistrate and accused-petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation, without expressing anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow the anticipatory bail applications of the accused-petitioners.

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail applications under Section 482 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioner Aamir Khan S/o Rujdar, in connection with FIR No. 201/2024 registered at Police Station Khoh, District Deeg he shall be released on bail, provided each of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:-

(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case

[2025:RJ-JP:9059]

[CRLMB-2567/2025]

(3 of 3)

so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

ashu /32