AADIL MIRJA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: SUNIL BENIWAL
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2026-08-05. AADIL MIRJA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2026:RJ-JP:37007] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10140/2026 CNR: RJHC010726742026 | URN: CRLMB / 22232U / 2026 Aadil Mirja S/o Abdul Kadir, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village Sangad Amrat Kedi PS Sangod District Kota Gramin Raj At Present Amratkhedi H No 85 Aman Colony Vighyan Nagar Ps Vighyan Nagar District Kota Raj. (Presently Lodged In Dist. Jail Udaipur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tushar Moad Ms. Aditi Moad For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL Order 05/08/2026 1. This application for bail has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of BNSS (old Section 439 of Cr. P. C. ). The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S. No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 398/2025 2. Date of lodging FIR 30. 11. 2025 3. Concerned Police Station Hiranmagri 4. District Udaipur 5.
Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 3/25(6), 5/25(7) of the Arms Act and Sections 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4) of the BNS 6. Offences added, if any Sections 5/25, 5/25(7)(i) of the Arms Act 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and false allegations have been levelled against him. He further submits that the co-accused [2026:RJ-JP:37007] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-10140/2026] Naresh, Goutam, Kamlendra Singh @ Rahul and Aditya have been granted bail by this Court and the role assigned to the present appellant in the present crime is not distinguishable from the role assigned to co-accused persons Naresh, Goutam, Kamlendra Singh @ Rahul and Aditya. 2. 2 The petitioner is in judicial custody since 11. 04. 2026 and the trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. 3.
Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes this bail application and submits that as many as 34 criminal cases have previously been registered against the present petitioner, therefore, he may not be enlarged on bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record. 5. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of this case and after perusing the challan papers so also considering the criminal antecedents of the present petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that no case for grant of bail is made out. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage. 6. Accordingly, the present bail application is dismissed. (SUNIL BENIWAL),J Ashutosh-77
Source: High Court of Rajasthan. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.