Irfan Husaain S/O Shri Samsudeen Vs State of Rajasthan

[2026:RJ-JP:5285]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10518/2025

Irfan Husaain S/o Shri Samsudeen, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Nichla Saat Alapur, Ps Akbarpur, District Alwar (Accused Petitioner Is In Judicial Custody In Jail Alwar).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 10888/2025 Gafru @ Gafrudeen S/o Kamal Khan, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Nichla Saat Alapur, Police Station Akbarpur, District Alwar (Raj.) (At Present In Central Jail, Alwar).

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

State Of Rajasthan, Thro	Versus ugh PP ----Resp
For Petitioner(s) :	Mr. Manish Gupta, Adv. Mr. Surendra Singh Sunda, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :	Mr. Amit Punia, PP
For Complainant(s) :	Mr. Dharmendra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anish Yadav, Adv. for Mr. Kapil Gupta, Adv.

¶13

----Respondent

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶15

Order

¶16

1. Date of conclusion of arguments : 15.01.2026
2. Date on which the judgment was reserved : 15.01.2026
3. Whether the full judgment or only the
operative part is pronounced : Full Judgment
4. Date of pronouncement : 07.02.2026

[CRLMB-10518/2025]

[2026:RJ-JP:5285]

(2 of 4)

These bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS have been filed on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.137/2024, registered at Police Station Akbarpur, District Alwar for offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2) and 126(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 103(1) and 190 of the BNS, 2023.

¶22

The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner, Gafru @ Gafrudeen was dismissed as withdrawn by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.04.2025.

¶23

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that there is enmity between the family of petitioners and family of deceased as a property dispute is going on between them. Counsel submit that on an earlier occasion, a case was registered by the family of the petitioners against the deceased and some members of his family under Section 307 of the IPC, wherein trial is going on before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No.4, Alwar. It is submitted that impugned FIR has been lodged with malafide intent. Counsel submit that as per prosecution story, two persons, namely Khurshid and Deena Khan are the eye-witnesses of the incident. It is submitted that aforesaid eye-witnesses have been examined during the course of trial as PW-3 and PW-4, respectively wherein they have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile. In such circumstances, no evidence is available

[2026:RJ-JP:5285]

[CRLMB-10518/2025]

(3 of 4)

on record to connect the petitioners with the alleged crime. Counsel submit that Dr. P. C. Saini, a member of the medical board that opined on the cause of death of the deceased, stated in his testimony that the possibility of the injuries having been caused by a sudden slip from a higher place and a fall onto a hard surface cannot be ruled out. Further, it has been stated by him that all the injuries have been caused by a blunt weapon. Counsel submit that co-accused namely Bhagmal @ Pappa, Aasam Khan @ Aasab, Insar and Vakeel Mohammad have already been enlarged on bail by this Court and the case of the present petitioners is identical to that of the co-accused. Counsel submit that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioner, Gafru @ Gafrudeen whereas one other case has been registered against the petitioner, Irfan Husaain under the provisions of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972. It is contended that there are bleak chances of culmination of trial in near future as till date, only 13 witnesses have been examined out of 35 cited prosecution witnesses. Counsel submit that petitioner- Irfan Husaain is in custody since 06.07.2024 and petitioner- Gafru @ Gafrudeen is in custody since 04.07.2025. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶28

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned Counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioners have been named in the parcha bayan of the deceased and thus, the case of the present petitioners is not identical in any manner to the case of the co-accused persons, who were enlarged on bail by

(4 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:5285]

[CRLMB-10518/2025]

this Court. It is submitted that a total of 13 injuries were noted on the person of the deceased. Counsel submit that cause of death has been opined as shock due to cumulative effect of injury Nos.1 to 5, supported by other injuries and their consequences. Counsel further submit that mere fact that some of the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case would not be enough for the petitioners to avail the benefit of bail when the deceased himself has taken the name of the petitioners in his parcha bayan. Thus, looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, benefit of bail should not be extended to the petitioners.

¶33

I have considered the contentions.

¶34

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet, as also the fact that the petitioners have duly been named in the parcha bayan of the deceased as well as looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

¶35

Accordingly, these bail applications stand dismissed.

¶36

The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of

¶37

these bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.

¶38

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶39

Manoj Solanki /11-12

Irfan Husaain S/O Shri Samsudeen v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan Husaain S/O Shri Samsudeen v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kaptan and Ors. Vs State

Manju Gouttam D/O Vidhyadhar Gautam W/O Govind Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Krishna Kumar Vyas Son of Shri Lalit Kumar Vyas, Vs State of Rajasthan

Pratul Kumar @ Rocky S/O Sugreev Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Vimla W/O Badriprasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Kavita Singh W/O Vikram Singh Vs State of Rajasthan