Allowed

Rahul S/O Raseed v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Apr 2025CRLMB/4576/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan allowed the anticipatory bail application of two accused-petitioners charged with offences under IPC and I.T. Act. The court observed that mobile phones were recovered from other co-accused, making custodial investigation unnecessary, and released the petitioners on bail subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Automated bail application allowed; accused-petitioners released on Rs. 50,000 bond with 2 sureties each, subject to conditions including submission of mobile phones.

Rahul S/O Raseed Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:15021]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.4576/2025

¶4

Rahul S/o Raseed, R/o Dondribas, Police Station Kaithwada, District Deeg, Rajasthan.

¶5

Akram S/o Raseed, R/o Dondribas, Police Station Kaithwada, District Deeg, Rajasthan.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Khan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP with Mr. Shubham Sain, AAAG

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶12

Order

¶13

03/04/2025

¶14

Apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR No. 87/2024, registered at Police Station Kaithwada, District Deeg for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC and Section 66-D of I.T. Act, the accused-petitioners have preferred this criminal misc. bail application under Section 482 of B.N.S.S.

¶15

Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners submits that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is argued that the accused-petitioners have not created any forged account. As per the prosecution story mobile phones were recovered from the other co-accused Raseed and 3 mobile phones were also recovered at the place of occurrence. The custodial interrogation of the accused-petitioners are not required, the

[2025:RJ-JP:15021]

[CRLMB-4576/2025]

(2 of 3)

accused-petitioners are ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation and there are no criminal antecedents against the accused-petitioners, therefore, the anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioners may be allowed.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the grant of anticipatory bail application.

¶21

Heard and perused the material available on the record. 5. The mobile phones, sim cards etc. have already been recovered from the possession of the other co-accused and from the place of occurrence, custodial investigation of the accusedpetitioners are not required and the accused-petitioners are ready and willing to co-operate with the investigation of the case and the offence alleged against the petitioners are exclusively triable by Magistrate. There are no criminal antecedents against the accused-petitioners, therefore, considering the above facts, without expressing anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow the instant anticipatory bail application of the accused-petitioners.

¶22

Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the accused-petitioners namely; 1. Rahul S/o Raseed and 2. Akram S/o Raseed, in connection with FIR No. 87/2024, registered at Police Station Kaithwada, District Deeg, they shall be released on bail, provided both 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:-

[2025:RJ-JP:15021]

[CRLMB-4576/2025]

(3 of 3)

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

¶27

(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.

¶28

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

¶29

(iv) that the petitioners shall submit their Mobile Phones along with the Sim Cards before the Investigating Agency. If the petitioners fails to submit their Mobile Phones and Sim Cards then the anticipatory bail will stand cancelled.

¶30

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶31

Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-21

Rahul S/O Raseed v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul S/O Raseed 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

Sangramsingh S/O Late Bhanwarsingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra S/O Babulal Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhupendra Singh S/O Shri Amar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramotar Sharma S/O Shri Kishan Lal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Shri Rajendra Kumar S/O Shri Beersingh, Vs State of Rajasthan

Ravindra Singh @ Kalli Shooter S/O Raghunath Singh Vs State of Rajasthan