Allowed

Sharukh @ Saddam S/O Allah Noor v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Sept 2026CRLMB/9611/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Jaipur granted bail to two petitioners charged under BNS for causing life-threatening injury. The court allowed applications filed under Section 483 BNSS to avoid further custody, requiring personal bonds and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners Talib S/o Mustkim and Sharukh @ Saddam S/o Allah Noor to be released on bail furnished personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

Sharukh @ Saddam S/O Allah Noor Vs the State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:35161]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16771/2025 CNR: RJHC021097002025 | URN: CRLMB / 32247U / 2025

¶4

Talib S/o Mustkim, R/o 19, Anubhag-3, Fakiro Ka Mohalla, Dabri Khurd, Kuradiya Kota (Rajasthan). (At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota, District Kota).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9611/2026 CNR: RJHC020571432026 | URN: CRLMB / 17826U / 2026

¶11

Sharukh @ Saddam S/o Allah Noor, R/o Bheempura, Police Station Kaithun, Kota Rural (Rajasthan) (Presently Confined In District Jail, Kota).

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Tarun Jain with Mr. Durgesh Kumar Jangid Mr. Rajneesh Gupta with Mr. Aamir Khan
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP Mr. Manish Parihar for Mr. SanjayKhan

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR

¶18

Order

¶19

01/09/2026

¶20

The petitioners have filed these bail applications under Section 483 of BNSS in FIR No.391/2025 registered at Police Station Udoyognagar (Kota City), District Kota City for offences

[2026:RJ-JP:35161]

[CRLMB-16771/2025]

(2 of 3)

under Sections 109(1), 308(5), 324(4), 333, 115(2) and 3(5) of BNS, 2023.

¶25

Since both these bail applications arise out of common FIR, hence, they are being decided by this common order. 3. Heard learned counsels for the petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record. 4. Learned counsels for the petitioners contend that the petitioners have falsely been implicated in these cases. They submit that there are allegations against the present petitioners of inflicting life-threatening injuries upon the injured Saumya Sharma @ Ajruddin. However, it is submitted that the injured sustained a total of 11 injuries, out of which only one injury has been opined to be dangerous to life. In the present matter, the statements of the injured, the Medical Officer and other material witnesses have already been recorded as PW-1 to PW-7 before the learned Trial Court. Petitioners are behind the bars since 25.08.2025 though six cases have been reported against petitioner- Shahrukh @Saddam, however, in all cases he is already on bail. The investigation/trial of the case will take considerable time, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioners in further custody, consequently, the bail applications deserves to be allowed.

¶26

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail applications filed by the petitioners. They submit that there are specific allegations against the petitioners and Injury No. 2 was opined to be dangerous to life. They further contend that in the statements of

[2026:RJ-JP:35161]

[CRLMB-16771/2025]

(3 of 3)

the injured person and the eye-witnesses recorded before the Court, incriminating material has emerged against the petitioners. It is also submitted that the knife used in the commission of the offence has been recovered from the possession of the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners may not be entitled for grant of bail.

¶31

On consideration of the rival submissions and material available on record and in the light of submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as custody period of the petitioners but without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, I am inclined to grant benefit of bail to the petitioners. 7. Consequently, the bail applications under Section 483 B.N.S.S. are allowed and it is directed that the petitioners Talib S/o Mustkim & Sharukh @ Saddam S/o Allah Noor, be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation that each of them shall appear before that Court on all subsequent dates of hearing till conclusion of the trial.

¶32

(PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J

¶33

Chandan/6-7

Sharukh @ Saddam S/O Allah Noor v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharukh @ Saddam S/O Allah Noor v. the 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