Sharafat Khan S/O Shri Inayat Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

(1 of 5) [CRLMB-1194/2026]

¶2

[2026:RJ-JP:9481]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Second Bail Application No.

¶5

1194/2026

¶6

Sharafat Khan Son of Shri Inayat Khan, Aged about 55 Years, R/o Pathano Ka Mohalla, Dayara Police Station Khandela, District Sikar Rajasthan. (At present accused-petitioner confined in District Sub Jail Neem Ka Thana).

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Rajasthan Through PP

¶10

	----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rajesh Goswami with Mr. Nikhil Sharma
For Respondent(s) For Complainant(s)	: : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP Mr. Jiya Ur Rahman

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶12

Order

¶13

05/03/2026

¶14

This second bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.154/2024 registered at Police Station Khandela, District Sikar (Rajasthan) for offences punishable under Sections 302 & 120B of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

¶15

The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 04.09.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of prosecution witnesses namely, Shankar Singh, Daulat

[2026:RJ-JP:9481]

[CRLMB-1194/2026]

(2 of 5)

Sablania and medial expert who conducted post-mortem of the deceased. Now, aforesaid witnesses have been examined during the course of trial thus, this second bail application has been preferred.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that according to the story narrated by the complainant, in Khandela Tehsil premises, the accused-petitioner hit the deceased with his Innova car with the intention to cause his death. Consequently, the deceased got stuck between the car and the stairs of the shops. Thereafter, the petitioner again ran the vehicle over the deceased, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries and later succumbed to them. Whereas, according to Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem, five injuries were found on the person of the deceased and it was opined that the death was caused due to a head injury. He has further deposed that these injuries could also be result of falling from the stairs. Counsel submits that testimony of medical expert would further reveal that no crush injury was found on the person of the deceased. Counsel submits that both independent witnesses namely, Shankar Singh and Daulat Sablania, who are running their shops at the alleged place of incident, have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile. Counsel submits that the presence of the aforesaid independent witnesses cannot be doubted at the place of incident and it appears from the overall facts and circumstances of the case that exaggerated facts have been narrated by the complainant in the FIR as well as in her

(3 of 5)

[2026:RJ-JP:9481]

[CRLMB-1194/2026]

testimony. Counsel submits that there is minimal likelihood of the culmination of the trial in the near future as to date, only 12 witnesses have been examined out of 33 cited prosecution witnesses. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 26.04.2024 and as such, he has already suffered incarceration of more than 22 months. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶25

Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. Counsel for the complainant submits that though, independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case but complainant/informant of this case has categorically stated that murder was committed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender as 10 other cases have been registered against him. Thus, looking to the gravity of offence, benefit of bail should not be extended to the petitioner.

¶26

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since 2013, no other case has been registered against the petitioner except the present case. He further submits that in eight cases, he has already been acquitted, while in two cases, which were registered under Sections 323 and 341 of the IPC in the years 1995–1996, the petitioner was granted the benefit of probation.

¶27

I have considered the contentions.

¶28

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned

[2026:RJ-JP:9481]

[CRLMB-1194/2026]

(4 of 5)

counsel for the parties, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet including testimony of complainant, independent witnesses and medical expert, who conducted the post-mortem of the deceased, as also considering the fact that there is minimal likelihood of the culmination of the trial in the near future as to date, only 12 witnesses have been examined out of 33 cited prosecution witnesses as well as looking to the period of custody which is more than 22 months, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow the second bail application.

¶33

This second bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Sharafat Khan Son of Shri Inayat Khan shall be released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that he shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶34

Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, it is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till conclusion of the trial.

(5 of 5)

[CRLMB-1194/2026]

[2026:RJ-JP:9481]

Concerned SHO shall enter attendance of the petitioner in the Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this regard.

¶39

If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to him by this Court.

¶40

Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance.

¶41

The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.

¶42

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶43

LALIT MOHAN /45

Sharafat Khan S/O Shri Inayat Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharafat Khan S/O Shri Inayat Khan 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

Surendra S/O Girdharilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Suryakant Gupta S/O Shambudayal Vs State of Rajasthan

Brajvardhan S/O Shri Rambabu Vs State of Rajasthan

Kishan Lal Yadav Son of Shri Sohan Lal Yadav Vs State of Rajasthan

Lokesh Kumar Meena S/O Shri Ghanshyam Prasad Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan

Radhika Kataria W/O Aman Choudhary, Vs State of Rajasthan