Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Siyakat S/O Nijardeen vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jp:10748) on 13 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:10748]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Third Bail Application No. 1890/2026
Siyakat S/o Nijardeen, R/o Kota Khurd, Police Station Ramgarh,
District Alwar, Rajasthan. (Presently Confined At Central Jail,
Alwar).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kapil Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Shekhawat, PP
Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, Additional G.A
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
13/03/2026
1. This third bail application under Section 483 of BNSS has
been filed on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in
connection with FIR No.643/2023 registered at Police Station
Ramgarh (Alwar), District Alwar for offences punishable under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 341, 323, 506, 452, 504, 427 &
395 of the Indian Penal Code, (in short ‘IPC‘) 1860 and Section
3/25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (Amendment 2019). After completion
of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 341, 323, 506,
504, 449 & 325 of the IPC and Sections 3/25 & 5/27 of the Arms
Act, 1959 (Amendment 2019).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first bail
application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as
withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 03.12.2024 while giving
liberty to renew the prayer for bail in changed circumstances.
Thereafter, second bail application was filed on behalf of the
(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 05:15:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:52:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10748] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-1890/2026]
petitioner however, same was also dismissed as withdrawn by this
Court vide order dated 30.06.2025 while giving liberty to renew the
prayer for bail after recording testimony of all the injured
witnesses. Counsel submits that, as of December 2025, only 12 out
of 55 cited prosecution witnesses have been examined. He submits
that the petitioner is behind the bars since 05.01.2024 and as such,
he has already suffered incarceration of more than two years and
two months. Thus, this third bail application has been filed on his
behalf.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted
that no specific allegation has been levelled against the petitioner
of causing firearm injury on the person of the deceased and same
has been attributed to the co-accused persons. He submits that
though witness namely, Shermal has alleged in his examination-in
chief that Javed, Sube Khan, Liyakat and Sikayat had opened fire at
the deceased, he categorically admitted during cross-examination
that he had not mentioned this fact in the Panchayatnama. Counsel
submits that the omission of such a material allegation in the
Panchayatnama casts serious doubt on the credibility of the witness
and renders his testimony unreliable. It is submitted that no
firearm has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner.
Further, similarly situated co-accused person namely, Sahil Khan
S/o Jamrudeen has been granted facility of bail by Hon’ble
Supreme Court. Counsel submits that there is minimal likelihood of
the culmination of the trial in the near future and no fruitful
purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.
(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 05:15:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:52:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10748] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-1890/2026]
4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the
submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner. It is submitted
that apart from death of one person, 16 other persons sustained
firearm injuries which shows that there was indiscriminate firing
and it is well established from the testimony of the witnesses that
petitioner was present at the place of incident and he actively
participated in the commission of the crime. It is submitted that
number of assailants were involved in the incident therefore, it is
not possible for the witnesses to describe specific role of each and
every assailant in their testimony. Further, apart from this case
another case was registered against the petitioner wherein vide
judgment dated 18.08.2017, he was convicted for offences
punishable under Sections 323, 341, 336 and 427 of IPC.
5. I have considered the contentions.
6. 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 considering the material available
on record in the form of charge-sheet, as also considering the fact
that no firearm has been recovered from the possession of the
petitioner, so also the fact that similarly situated co-accused person
has been granted facility of bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court and
there is minimal likelihood of the culmination of the trial in the near
future as well as looking to the fact that the petitioner is behind the
bars since 05.01.2024, but without commenting anything on the
merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this
third bail application.
7. This third bail application is accordingly allowed and it is
(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 05:15:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:52:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:10748] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-1890/2026]
directed that accused-petitioner Siyakat S/o Nijardeen shall be
released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum
of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh only) together with two
sureties in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) each
to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the 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.
8. It is made clear that the accused-petitioner shall not involve
in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and he shall
mark his presence in first week of every month in the concerned
police station, till conclusion of the trial.
9. Concerned SHO shall enter attendance of the petitioner in the
Roznamcha. In case the petitioner fails to mark his presence in the
concerned police station, the concerned SHO is directed to
immediately report the matter to the concerned Court in this
regard.
10. If any breach of these conditions is reported or come to the
notice of the Court, the same shall alone be a reason for the trial
Court to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner by this Court.
11. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned
SHO for necessary compliance.
12. 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.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
Manoj Solanki/7
(Uploaded on 04/04/2026 at 05:15:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/04/2026 at 09:52:37 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)