State Of Rajasthan, Through PP v. Connected

: Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar Mr. Ashutosh Chouhan for Mr. Sanjay Khan Mr. Vafik Choudhary Mr. Aarif Mohammed with Mr. Arafat Hussain Mr. Ankit Khandelwal Mr. Kartar Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asst. G.A. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN 17/09/2025 Order

1. These second bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.187/2025 registered at Police Station Jurhera, District Deeg for offences under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 317(5), 303(2), 308(2), 313, 61(2)(a) & [2025:RJ-JP:38045] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-12028/2025] 61(2)(b) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (in short, ‘BNS’), 2023 and Section 66D of I.T. Act.

2. The first bail applications preferred on behalf of the petitioners were dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 18.08.2025. Now, these second bail applications have been preferred.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that no private complaint was received by the Investigating Agency. It is submitted that on cyber portal, some complaints were registered but all complainants refused to give statement to the Investigating Agency. It is contended that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. It is contended that petitioners are in custody since 16.06.2025 and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that with regard to phone recovered from petitioners, some complaints were registered on cyber portal however, he fairly concedes that none of the complainants came forward for recording their statement during the course of investigation.

6. I have considered the contentions. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, as also considering the fact that petitioners do not have criminal antecedents and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the [2025:RJ-JP:38045] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-12028/2025] custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow these second bail applications.

7. These second bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners (1) Tohid S/o Fajruddin, (2) Jamshed S/o Aasu @ Aas Mohammed, (3) Munsad S/o Sammi, (4) Iklas S/o Jagroop, (5) Jilsad S/o Tundal @ Jamaluddin, (6) Sakil S/o Sahid, (7) Mukesh S/o Foolchand and (8) Abdesh S/o Rajendra, shall be released on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that they 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 petitioners shall not involve in similar offence and shall mark their presence in the concerned police station in first week of every month, till conclusion of trial. It is further directed that petitioners shall share their mobile numbers (in use) to the trial court and Investigating Agency and they shall not switch off their phones.

9. Concerned SHO is directed to maintain a register recording the attendance of the petitioners, as directed above. In case the petitioners fail to mark their 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. [2025:RJ-JP:38045] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-12028/2025]

10. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the concerned SHO for necessary compliance.

11. 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 them by this Court.

12. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of these bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. CHARU SONI /167-172 & c-1 (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J