Rumal S/O Mohammad @ Mauj Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

[2026:RJ-JP:2693]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 407/2026

Rumal son of Mohammad @ Mauj Khan, aged about 35 Years, Resident of Bilang, Police Station Kaman, District Deeg (Rajasthan) (At present accused-petitioner confined in Sub Jail, Deeg)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

	Versus
State of Rajasthan t	hrough PP ----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ankit Khandelwal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Amit Punia,PP

¶7

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶8

Order

¶9

21/01/2026

¶10

This bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.240/2024 registered at Police Station Kaman, District Deeg (Raj.) for offence punishable under Section 5/8 of Rajasthan Bovine Animals (Prohibition of Slaughter & Regulation of Temporary Migration & Export), Act, 1995. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that alleged offence is triable by Magistrate. Counsel submits that there is allegation against the petitioner and co-accused persons of transporting the bovine animals. Counsel submits that co-accused

[2026:RJ-JP:2693]

[CRLMB-407/2026]

(2 of 3)

namely- Anil, Vipin, Tahir and Idrish @ Iddi have already been granted benefit of bail by learned trial Court. Counsel submits that learned trial Court rejected the bail application of the petitioner only on the basis of the fact that six other cases have been registered against the petitioner. It is submitted that charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel submits that petitioner is in custody since 05.12.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶15

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application..

¶16

I have considered the contentions.

¶17

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially considering the fact that alleged offence is triable by Magistrate, as also the fact that coaccused namely- Anil, Vipin, Tahir and Idrish @ Iddi have already been granted benefit of bail by learned trial Court, so also the fact that charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this bail application.

¶18

The bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner- Rumal S/o Mohammad @ Mauj 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

[2026:RJ-JP:2693]

[CRLMB-407/2026]

(3 of 3)

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.

¶23

Considering the criminal antecedents of the petitioner, it is made clear that the petitioner shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail granted by this Court. The petitioner is further directed to mark his presence in the concerned police station in first week of every month, till trial is concluded.

¶24

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

¶25

If breach of any of these conditions is reported or come to the notice of the Court, same shall alone be a reason for the trial Court to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner by this Court. 10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance.

¶26

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.

¶27

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶28

LALIT MOHAN /45

Rumal S/O Mohammad @ Mauj Khan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rumal S/O Mohammad @ Mauj 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

Manraj S/O Ramkishan Vs State of Rajasthan

Naresh Kumar S/O Heerala Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Rafi Rizvi S/O Shri Mohammad Jaki Rizvi Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhawana D/O Ravi Kumar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Hidayat Ali S/O Lukmal Ali Vs State of Rajasthan

Lal Singh S/O Ranjeet Singh Vs State of Rajasthan