Dismissed¶36

Aslam Sher Khan @ Chintu S/O Ahmed Ali v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Feb 2026CRLMB/16649/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; CRLMB-16649/2025; S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application; Aslam Sher Khan @ Chintu; bail application dismissed 04/02/2026; Justice Ashok Kumar Jain; Section 483 BNSS bail; Section 308(2) BNS criminal intimidation/threat by phone call; Section 111 BNS organised gang charge; FIR No.364/2024 P.S. Gumanpura Kota City; Sessions Case No.235/2025 ASJ No.5 Kota; criminal antecedents 23 cases (6 acquittals, 3 convictions); gangs operated from jail premises; PW-1 Mohd. Zaki statement recorded 31.01.2026; second bail application after dismissal on 25.08.2025.

What did the court decide?

The material on record indicated 23 criminal cases registered against the petitioner; he was acquitted in 6 cases, convicted in three cases, and the remainder are pending before the trial courts. ¶29

Aslam Sher Khan @ Chintu S/O Ahmed Ali Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant-accused Aslam Sher Khan @ Chintu, charged under Section 308(2) of BNS in FIR No.364/2024 (P.S. Gumanpura, Kota City), should be enlarged on bail under Section 483 of BNSS.

¶13

Court's answer

The material on record indicated 23 criminal cases registered against the petitioner; he was acquitted in 6 cases, convicted in three cases, and the remainder are pending before the trial courts.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Considering the petitioner's criminal background and the fact that gangs are operated even from jail premises posing a serious threat to the well-being of the common man, the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted; this is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶10

Key takeaways

The alleged offences are of serious nature and the role attributed to the applicant is prima facie sufficient to consider his complicity in the crime; considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused on bail.ratio¶11
Considering the gravity of allegations and the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicant accused at this stage.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail refused — CRLMB-16649/2025, High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Kumar Jain), order dated 04/02/2026. Applicant-accused Aslam Sher Khan @ Chintu S/o Ahmed Ali, charged under Section 308(2) of BNS in FIR No.364/2024 dated 26.08.2024 of P.S. Gumanpura, Kota City (report of PW-1 Mohd. Zaki alleging threat by phone call), sought bail under Section 483 of BNSS; charge-sheet filed and trial pending as Sessions Case No.235/2025 before Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Kota. During pendency, PW-1's statement was recorded on 31.01.2026. Material showed 23 criminal cases against the petitioner (acquitted in 6, convicted in 3, rest pending); prosecution alleged he operates an organised gang (Section 111 of BNS charge). The court held the offences serious, the attributed role prima facie sufficient to show complicity, and that gangs operate even from jail premises; it found this not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail and dismissed the application.

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:5317]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal 2^nd Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16649/2025

¶4

Aslam Sher Khan @ Chintu S/o Ahmed Ali, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Near Children School Chhawani Kota Rojhala New Dhanmandi Police Thana Gumanpura Kota. (At Present Confined At Central Jail Kota).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Abdul Kalam Khan
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rajendra Singh Shekhawat, PP
	Mr. Samarth Sharma

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶11

Order

¶12

04/02/2026

¶13

Instant application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS by the applicant-accused Aslam Sher Khan @ Chintu S/o Ahmed Ali, in FIR No. 364/2024 dated 26.08.2024 registered at P.S. Gumanpura, District – Kota City, whereby the applicant accused was charged under Section 308(2) of BNS.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the matter and the investigation against him is complete and he is no more required in investigation. He further submits that there are no chance of fleeing of applicant accused from the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. He also submits that the

[2026:RJ-JP:5317]

[CRLMB-16649/2025]

(2 of 4)

applicant undertakes not to repeat offence and cooperate with investigation/trial, which will take time.

¶19

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that first bail application was dismissed on 25.08.2025 and thereafter statement of PW-1 Mohammad Zaki @ Sahil were recorded on 31.01.2026. He also submitted that report registered by Mohd. Zaki indicated that at the time of incident, present petitioner was in custody. He also referred the material on record and submitted that present petitioner was arrested on 24.07.2024 in relation to another matter and current FIR is registered on 26.08.2024 for incident between 29.07.2024 to 08.08.2024. He further submitted that the main allegation is upon Mumtaz, who has been granted bail by the trial court. He also submitted that when present petitioner was in custody, then it is not possible for him to make a call from jail and intimidate complainant PW-1. He further referred cross-exmaination of PW-1 and submitted that cheque dishonour cases were registered by Maumtaz against PW-1 and same are pending. He further submitted that the admission also indicated that three criminal cases were registered at different police station of Kota against PW-1 and present petitioner. At last, he submitted that petitioner is in custody for last more than one and a half year.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that the allegations are grave and serious in nature. Learned counsel for complainant has submitted that 27 cases were registered against the petitioner and he is

(3 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:5317]

[CRLMB-16649/2025]

operating an organized gang and charge of offence under Section 111 of BNS is charged against him.

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record by both the parties.

¶26

On the basis of report dated 26.08.2024 lodged by PW-1 Mohd. Zaki about alleged threat from phone call, FIR No.364/2024 dated 26.08.2024 was registered at P.S. Gumanpura, Kota City under Section 308(2) of BNS. The material on record indicated that petitioner is arrested on 14.05.2025 and since then he is in custody. After investigation, police has filed a charge-sheet against several persons including present petitioner and case is registered as sessions case No.235/2025 and pending before learned Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Kota.

¶27

During pendency of current bail application, this court has directed for recording of statement of complainant and on 31.01.2026, statement of PW-1 Mohd. Zaki is recorded by the trial court. A copy of statement is placed on record.

¶28

We have considered cross-examination of PW-1 as referred by learned counsel for petitioner in particular registration of criminal cases jointly against the complainant PW-1 and present petitioner and also dispute relating to mines along with pendency of cases against the complainant including cheque dishonour cases.

¶29

The material on record indicated that 23 criminal cases were registered against present petitioner and out of which, petitioner was acquitted in 6 cases, but he was convicted in

(4 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:5317]

[CRLMB-16649/2025]

three cases and remaining are pending before the trial courts.

¶34

Considering the criminal background of petitioner and also the fact that gangs are operated even from jail premises posing serious threat to well being of common man thus we are unable to accept the contentions raised by learned counsel for petitioner, therefore this is not a fit case to enlarge petitioner on bail.

¶35

The facts and the material indicate that the alleged offence are of serious nature and role attributed to applicant is prima facie sufficient to consider complicity of applicant in the crime. Therefore, at this juncture, considering the evidence collected so far, this is not a fit case to enlarge the applicant accused on bail.

¶36

Considering the gravity of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, it is appropriate to dismiss the bail application of the applicant accused at this stage.

¶37

Accordingly, the application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS preferred by Aslam Sher Khan @ Chintu S/o Ahmed Ali is hereby dismissed.

¶38

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶39

PREETI VALECHA /10

Aslam Sher Khan @ Chintu S/O Ahmed Ali v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aslam Sher Khan @ Chintu S/O Ahmed Ali 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

Shahrukh S/O Nafees Vs State of Rajasthan

Lokesh Poonia S/O Amilal Poonia Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijaylata Sharma D/O Shri Bhanwar Lal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Ker Singh Gurjar S/O. Sh. Kamal Singh Gurjar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Smt. Beena Sharma W/O Rajesh Chaturvedi Vs State of Rajasthan

Karan Jareda S/O Samay Singh Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan