Hakamdeen @ Hakam S/O Aameen Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

[2026:RJ-JP:20727]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 14256/2025

Hakamdeen @ Hakam S/o Aameen Khan, R/o Mirchuni, Police Station Tapukada, District Khairthal Tijara, Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Alwar).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anirudh Singh Shekhawat, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP with Mr. Navdeep Singh For Complainant : Mr. Aayush Goyal, Adv.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶11

Order

¶12

15/05/2026

¶13

This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.332/2024 registered at Police Station Tapukara, District Bhiwari for offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 333, 109(1), 351(2) of BNS and Section 3/25 of Arms Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this case for offences punishable under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 333, 351(2), 103(1) of BNS and Sections 3/25 & 5/27 of Arms Act in the concerned Court.

¶14

The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 08.09.2025 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording the testimony of material witnesses. After passing of more than one

[2026:RJ-JP:20727]

[CRLMB-14256/2025]

(2 of 3)

month of rejection of first bail application, the petitioner has filed this second bail application stating that the material witnesses are not turning up despite issuance of summons.

¶19

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that after filing of this second bail application, total eight material witnesses including the complainant have been examined during the course of trial and there are several improvements as well as implication in their testimony. Counsel further submits that there is lack of material evidence to connect the present petitioner with the alleged crime. Counsel also submits that petitioner is in custody since 12.10.2024; trial will take considerable time in its conclusion and thus, further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶20

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposes the prayer for bail. It is submitted that there are serious allegation against the petitioner that he along with other co-accused persons, in a criminal conspiracy, arrived at the house of the deceased while armed with deadly weapon viz. country-made pistol, revolver, axe etc and fired gunshot upon him. It is submitted that there is direct allegations against the petitioner that he fired gunshot on the chest of the deceased, resulting into his death. It is further submitted that looking to the nature, seriousness and gravity of offence as well as the active role of the petitioner in the alleged crime of murder so also the evidence that has come on record so far, the petitioner does not deserve indulgence of bail. They, thus, crave dismissal of the bail application.

[2026:RJ-JP:20727]

[CRLMB-14256/2025]

(3 of 3)

I have considered the contentions.

¶25

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially the statements of the material witnesses including the complainant, who is the eye-witness of the incident, so also considering the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner of firing gunshot upon the chest of the deceased as well as looking to the nature, seriousness and gravity of offence, but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of this case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶26

Accordingly, this second bail application stands dismissed.

¶27

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.

¶28

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶29

Manoj Solanki /3

Hakamdeen @ Hakam S/O Aameen Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hakamdeen @ Hakam S/O Aameen Khan 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

Stn Son of Late Shri Samundraya Alias Samundra Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Khemsingh @ Khemaram @ Khema S/O Bijendra Vs State of Rajasthan

Babita Kumari, W/O Pawan Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Virendra Singh Chandeliya S/O Shri Kumbharam Chandeliya Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramsahay Kushwah S/O Lutteram Kushwah Vs State of Rajasthan

Deepak Malik @ Tinku S/O Shri Suresh Malik Vs the State of Rajasthan