Allowed

Imran Pinara Mansuri S/O Taj Mohammad @ Tajudeen Mansuri v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Mar 2026CRLMB/1599/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Three accused sought bail for offences under BNS and the Arms Act arising from an FIR alleging they opened fire at three places on the same day. Noting no firearm or bullet was recovered at two of the three places, the court granted bail with conditions including monthly appearance before the SHO and a warning that bail would be cancelled if further serious involvement surfaced within three years.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs.50,000 each; monthly appearance before SHO Bhinai until trial concludes.

Imran Pinara Mansuri S/O Taj Mohammad @ Tajudeen Mansuri… — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:11245]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1599/2026

¶4

Imran Pinara Mansuri S/o Taj Mohammad @ Tajudeen Mansuri, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Indra Colony, Devliya Kalan, Police Station Bhinai, District Ajmer (Raj.). (Accused At Present Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1600/2026

¶11

1. Pawan Meghwanshi S/o Jasraj Meghwanshi, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Chamaro Ka Mohalla, Devliya Kalan, Police Station Bhinai, District Ajmer (Raj.).

¶12

(Accused At Present Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer).

¶13

Tarun Sain S/o Late Anil Kumar Sain, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Bandhi Mohalla, Devliya Kalan, P.s. Bhinai, District Ajmer (Raj.) (Accused At Present Confined In Central Jail, Ajmer).

¶14

----Petitioners

¶15

Versus

¶16

State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor

¶17

----Respondent

¶18

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mritunjya Sharma Mr. Deepesh Kumar Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, P.P. with Mr. Shubham Sain, AAAG
	Mr. Omprakash, SHO
	Police Station Bhinai, District Ajmer, present inperson

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order

17/03/2026

[2026:RJ-JP:11245]

[CRLMB-1599/2026]

(2 of 4)

These misc. bail applications have been filed by the petitioners Imran Pinara Mansuri S/o Taj Mohammad @ Tajudeen Mansuri, Pawan Meghwanshi S/o Jasraj Meghwanshi and Tarun Sain S/o Late Anil Kumar Sain, aged about 21 years, 26 years and 24 years respectively in connection with the FIR bearing No.294/2025 dated 07.12.2025 registered at Police Station Bhinai, District Ajmer for the offences punishable under Sections 324(4), 324(5), 351(2), 308(2), 352, 111(2)(a) and 109(1) of B.N.S. and under Section 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have been arrested in connection with the impugned FIR on the allegation that they opened fire upon the complainant. Learned counsel further submitted that the entire case is false and baseless as police registered three FIRs at the same police station bearing Nos.292/2025, 293/2025 and 295/2025 on the same day. Learned counsel further submitted that, as pointed out by the Investigating Officer present before this Court, the allegations in all the three FIRs is that a firearm was used and, therefore, the FIRs were registered against the petitioners. Learned counsel further submitted that, apart from these three FIRs dated 07.12.2025, the petitioners have one criminal case under Section 379 IPC of the year 2022 and one more case under the Arms Act of the year 2022 and, thereafter, there are no criminal antecedents of any nature and all of a sudden three FIRs have registered on the same day. In view thereof, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed that the petitioners be enlarged on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail applications.

[2026:RJ-JP:11245]

[CRLMB-1599/2026]

(3 of 4)

This Court called the Investigation Officer to inquire as to how three FIRs were registered one after and the other on the same day. The Investigating Officer informed that the petitioners used a firearm at three places namely i.e. Vishrambari, Ekalsingha and Rohillakalla and, therefore, three FIRs were registered. On further querry of this Court as to what was recovered from all the three places, the Investigating Officer informed that one round was recovered at the first place namely Vishrambari, for which the FIR bearing No.292/2025 was registered, however, no bullet or other incriminating material was recovered at the other two places for which the FIRs bearing Nos. 293/2025 and 295/2025 were registered under the Arms Act. This Court after interacting with the Investigating Officer and hearing the learned Public Prosecutor, noted that no recovery of firearm, bullet etc. has been made from the alleged two places and casually three FIRs were registered. This appears to be doubtful, however, as the investigating is pending, this Court was not like to make any comment of this case.

¶30

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to exercise its power under Section 483 B.N.S.S. and deems it just and proper to enlarge the accusedpetitioners - Imran Pinara Mansuri S/o Taj Mohammad @ Tajudeen Mansuri , Pawan Meghwanshi S/o Jasraj Meghwanshi and Tarun Sain S/o Late Anil Kumar Sain on bail.

¶31

Accordingly, these bail applications filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. are allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners - Imran Pinara Mansuri S/o Taj Mohammad @ Tajudeen

[2026:RJ-JP:11245]

[CRLMB-1599/2026]

(4 of 4)

Mansuri , Pawan Meghwanshi S/o Jasraj Meghwanshi and Tarun Sain S/o Late Anil Kumar Sain shall be released on bail, provided each of them executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for their appearance before that Court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial. The petitioners are further directed not to take undue advantage of liberty or misuse liberty. It is made clear that the observation as made by this Court in the bail applications will not affect the trial of the case.

¶36

7. It is further directed that in case, if the petitioners are found to be involved in any case under the Arms Act or any serious offence within a period of three years from the date of passing of this order, learned Public prosecutor shall file an application for cancellation of the bail without any fail.

¶37

8. The accused-petitioners are directed to appear before the Station House Officer, Police Station Bhinai, District Ajmer, once in every month on a date to be fixed by the SHO. Thereafter, their attendance shall be monitored on a monthly basis by the SHO till the conclusion of trial.

¶38

(RAVI CHIRANIA),J

¶39

150-151 - RAVI KHANDELWAL

Imran Pinara Mansuri S/O Taj Mohammad @ Tajudeen Mansuri v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imran Pinara Mansuri S/O Taj Mohammad @ Tajudeen Mansuri v. 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

Sunil S/O Pokharram Vs State of Rajasthan

Naresh S/O Gel Chand Vs State of Rajasthan

Guddu Yadav S/O Shyamlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Alam S/O Ratti Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vasudev S/O Suresh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Satyaveer @ Dhamas S/O Padam Vs State of Rajasthan