Allowed

Aakil S/O Innas v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Feb 2025CRLMB/1545/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed anticipatory bail applications for three petitioners implicated in an FIR for offenses under BNS and IT Act. The Court noted that physical evidence was recovered from other co-accused, the petitioners were ready to cooperate, and custodial interrogation was not required.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted; petitioners to be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each, subject to conditions for cooperation and not leaving In

Aakil S/O Innas Vs State of Rajasthan — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:4638]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1543/2025

¶4

Sarif S/o Shermohammad @ Sheru, R/o Khadriwas Kaithwada, Police Station Kaithwada, District Deeg (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1544/2025

¶11

Saddam S/o Vanshi, R/o Kaithwada, Police Station Kaithwada, District Deeg (Raj.)

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1545/2025 Aakil S/o Innas, R/o Village Hajiwas Kaithwada, Police Station Kaithwada, District Deeg (Raj.)

¶17

----Petitioner

¶18

Versus

¶19

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶20

----Respondent

¶21

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP

¶22

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶23

Order

¶24

03/02/2025

¶25

Apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No. 164/2024 registered at Police Station Kaithwada, District Deeg for the offence(s) under Sections 111(2)(a), 303(2), 317(2), 319(2),

[CRLMB-1543/2025]

[2025:RJ-JP:4638]

(2 of 3)

318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 308(2) and 61(2)(a) of BNS and Sections 66D and 66E of IT Act, the accused-petitioners have preferred these anticipatory bail applications under Section 482 BNSS.

¶30

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submit that accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in the case. He further submits that the accused-petitioners were involved solely on the disclosure statement of the other co-accused. The mobile phones, sim cards, cheques etc. were recovered from the other co-accused Jalish and Saddam. The accused-petitioners have not used the mobiles recovered from the other co-accused. It is further contended that the accused-petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and custodial interrogation of the accused-petitioners are not required, therefore, the, anticipatory bail applications of the accusedpetitioners may be allowed.

¶31

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the anticipatory bail applications.

¶32

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶33

Considering the fact that the recovery of mobile phones and sim cards allegedly used for creating false ID's and obscene videos were effected from the other co-accused namely Saddam and Jalish. The accused-petitioners are ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation and custodial interrogation of the accusedpetitioners are not required. Thus, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow the anticipatory bail applications of the accused-petitioners.

[2025:RJ-JP:4638]

[CRLMB-1543/2025]

(3 of 3)

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail applications under Section 482 BNSS are allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioners namely- 1. Sarif S/o Shermohammad @ Sheru, 2. Saddam S/o Vanshi and 3. Aakil S/o Innas in connection with FIR No. 164/2024 registered at Police Station Kaithwada, District Deeg, they shall be released on bail, provided each of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:-

¶38

(i) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶39

(ii) that the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and

¶40

(iii) that the petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶41

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶42

Keshav/23-25

Aakil S/O Innas v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aakil S/O Innas 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

Sumit Khandelwal S/O Shri Gopal Lal Khandelwal Vs State of Rajasthan

Danish Hanifi S/O Jafar Mohammad Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohit Sharma S/O Shri Ratan Lal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju Meena @ Raju Langda S/O Kanhaiyalal Vs State of Rajasthan

Vimal Kumar Prajapati S/O Shri Devilal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ballu Khati @ Moogal Singh @ Sachidanand S/O Shri Yadram Guru Shri Karunanand Vs State of Rajasthan