Allowed

Talim S/O Arsad v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Oct 2025CRLMB/10370/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail applications by three accused in FIR No.126/2025 involving offences under Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita and IT Act. Court granted bail noting offences triable by Magistrate, no criminal antecedents and prolonged trial.

What did the court decide?

Accused-petitioners released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- each with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, subject to stated conditions.

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

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:42206]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10370/2025

¶4

Talim S/o Arsad, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Kaithwada, Police Station Kaithwada, District Deeg, Rajasthan. (Currently In Sub Jail, Deeg, Rajasthan).

¶5

Javed S/o Hussain, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Hathiya, Police Station Barsana, District Mathura, Uttar Pradesh. (Currently In Sub Jail, Deeg, Rajasthan).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10371/2025 Jursed S/o Imran, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Nainapur, Police Station Badaudamev, District Alwar, Rajasthan. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail, Deeg)

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Surendra Singh, Adv.
	Mr. Ankit Khandelwal, Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

¶18

Order

¶19

15/10/2025

¶20

These criminal misc. bail applications have been filed by the petitioners under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 in respect of FIR No.126/2025 registered at Police Station Kaithwada, District Deeg for the offences punishable under Section 303(2), 317(2), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 308(2), 61(2)(a) of Bhartiya Nyay

[2025:RJ-JP:42206]

[CRLMB-10370/2025]

(2 of 3)

Sanhita, 2023, and Section 66D of Information Technology Act, 2000.

¶25

It is submitted that the petitioners have been implicated in the FIR in question only on account of possessing mobile, whereas no offences whatsoever as alleged has been committed by them. It is submitted that there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioners. They are behind the bar since 28.07.2025. Offences alleged in the FIR are triable by Magistrate. Hence, in the circumstances, where the trial is likely to take considerably long time. Hence, the petitioners prayed for granting bail in the instant matters.

¶26

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed these bail applications.

¶27

Considered the submissions made at Bar.

¶28

In the light of the fact that the offences alleged against the petitioners are triable by Magistrate and there are no criminal antecedents of the petitioners and trial is likely to take considerably long time, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

¶29

Accordingly, these Bail Applications are hereby allowed. The accused-petitioners (1) Talim S/o Arsad, (2) Javed S/o Hussain and (3) Jursed S/o Imran shall be released on bail in pursuance of FIR No.126/2025 registered at Police Station Kaithwada, District Deeg, on each of them furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.50,000/-

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:42206]

[CRLMB-10370/2025]

each. That apart, the accused-petitioners shall also follow the conditions as under:-

¶34

(i) They shall not tamper with any evidence, nor would influence the witnesses in the case.

¶35

(ii) They shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

¶36

(iii) They shall co-operate in the trial and shall attend each and every date of hearing in the trial, until and unless his presence is exempted by the trial Court.

¶37

(iv) They shall regularly mark their attendance in the concerned Police Station on 25th day of every month. Concerned S.H.O. shall maintain the register of attendance of the accused-petitioners.

¶38

(v) On repetition of similar nature of offence during trial, the instant bail shall stand automatically cancelled.

¶39

(ANAND SHARMA),J

¶40

Jatin /61-62

Talim S/O Arsad v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Talim S/O Arsad 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

Heera Lal Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Gopikrishan Choudhary Hurkat S/O Lt. Dwarka Das Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohitpal Singh Alias Monu S/O Sh. Durga Singh Chouhan Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Aditi Revadiya W/O Shri Mukesh Rohila Vs State of Rajasthan

Prem Singh S/O Patre Vs State of Rajasthan

Jursed S/O Imran Vs State of Rajasthan