Allowed

Shakil S/O Jakar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Aug 2025CRLMB/10107/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed under Section 483 BNSS for an accused implicated in cyber fraud offences. The court allowed bail bearing in mind that the petitioner was not named in the original FIR and co-accused had been released on bail.

What did the court decide?

Enlarged accused-petitioner Shahil S/o Jakar on bail under Section 483 BNSS furnishing a personal bond with two sureties.

Shakil S/O Jakar Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:31210]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10107/2025

¶4

Shakil S/o Jakar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Bhandara, Police Station Jurhara, District Deeg, Rajasthan. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail Deeg).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶11

Order

¶12

12/08/2025

¶13

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-petitioner. The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.28/2025 registered at Police Station Jurhara, District Deeg for the offence(s) under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 111(6), 317(5), 303(2), 308(2), 313 and 61(2)(a) of BNS and Section 66D of IT Act.

¶14

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that the accused-petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He further submits that in the FIR, the name of the petitioner is not mentioned. The police was able to arrest the two accused but the third accused namely- Dilshad fled away when the raid was made. The accused-petitioner have been made accused in the present case without any reasonable cause. The other co-accused from whom mobile phones, sim cards etc., were recovered have already

(2 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:31210]

[CRLMB-10107/2025]

been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 27.02.2025. It is further contended that the accused-petitioner is in custody since 05.07.2025 and the trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, the bail application of the accused-petitioner may be allowed.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and contended that the accused-petitioner is involved in cyber fraud and his associates have created fake application in their mobile and thereby deceived the public at large. It is also contended that against the petitioner, 3 FIR have been registered under various offences of IPC. The petitioner is having criminal antecedents, therefore, the bail application of the accusedpetitioner may be dismissed.

¶20

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶21

It is not desirable to express anything on the merits of the case. Considering the fact that the other co-accused have already been enlarged on bail and the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR, the petitioner is in custody since 05.07.2025 and trial of the case may take considerable time, therefore, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the accusedpetitioner on bail.

¶22

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner Shakil S/o Jakar, in connection with FIR No.28/2025 registered at Police Station Jurhara, District Deeg shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:31210]

[CRLMB-10107/2025]

Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶27

The accused-petitioner is also directed to mark his presence on 25^th of every month till conclusion of trial before the concerned police station. The SHO of the concerned police station is directed to maintain a regular register marking the presence of the accused-petitioner and shall send the presence report of the accused-petitioner on the same day to the concerned Trial Court without any delay. In case of any breach to the above condition, the learned Public Prosecutor shall be free to move the application against the petitioner for cancellation of the bail before the concerned Court.

¶28

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶29

Keshav/8

Shakil S/O Jakar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakil S/O Jakar 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

Manish Khan S/O Akbardeen Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Mithlesh Kumar S/O Late Dula Shah Vs C.B.N.

Sunil Turi S/O Shri Bodha Turi Vs State of Rajasthan

Shankar Urf Shankariya Urf Kajod Urf Golya Son of Birbal @ Chauthu Bawari Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Kumar Suman S/O Mathuralal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh @ Nakad S/O Chinga Saini Vs State of Rajasthan