Allowed

Intjar Ahmed S/O Shri Sakil Ahmed v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC7 Aug 2025/8454/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court allowed bail applications filed by two accused persons arrested under offences including Section 318(2) of BNS and Section 66D of IT Act. Considering the maximum punishment and length of trial, bail was granted subject to costs and reporting conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners released on bail by furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000 each, appearing monthly at police station.

Intjar Ahmed S/O Shri Sakil Ahmed Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:30595]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8257/2025

¶4

Wasim S/o Zakir Hussain, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 77, Minhajpur Nurullah Road, Khuldabad, Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh) (At Present Confined In Central Jail Kota).

¶5

----Accused-Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8454/2025 Intjar Ahmed S/o Shri Sakil Ahmed, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Maliyadi Police Station Puramukti District Prayagraj (Uttar Pradesh) (At Present Confined In Central Jail, Kota (Raj).

¶11

----Accused-Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Anupam Sharma, Adv., for
	Mr. Gajveer Singh Rajawat, Adv., and Mr. Rohit Khandelwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶17

Order

¶18

07/08/2025

¶19

These instant bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.4/2025 registered at Police Station Cyber Police Station, District Kota City (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Section 318(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 66D of IT Act. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter.

[2025:RJ-JP:30595]

[CRLMB-8257/2025]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submit that alleged offences are triable by Magistrate for which maximum punishment is seven years. They argue that charge-sheet has already been filed, there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners of similar nature and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. They contend that petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶24

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners.

¶25

I have considered the contentions.

¶26

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, as also the fact that alleged offences are triable by magistrate for which maximum punishment is seven years; charge-sheet has been filed; absence of criminal antecedents of similar nature and trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow these bail applications.

¶27

These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners 1. Wasim S/o Zakir Hussain, and 2. Intjar Ahmed S/o Shri Sakil Ahmed 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

[2025:RJ-JP:30595]

[CRLMB-8257/2025]

(3 of 3)

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.

¶32

It is made clear that the accused-petitioners shall not involve in any other offence(s) during currency of the bail and they shall mark their presence in first week of every month in the concerned police station, till trial is concluded.

¶33

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.

¶34

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.

¶35

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

¶36

The observation made herein above is only for decision of these instant bail applications and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.

¶37

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶38

MADAN/376-377

Intjar Ahmed S/O Shri Sakil Ahmed v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Intjar Ahmed S/O Shri Sakil Ahmed v. 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

Purushottam S/O Kalu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramesh Bawariya S/O Ramlal Bawariya Vs State of Rajasthan

Shankar Lal S/O Motiram Vs State of Rajasthan

Mangat Singh S/O Didar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Wasim S/O Zakir Hussain Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopichand S/O Sh. Birbal Ram Vs C.B.N.