Allowed

Prakash Jangid S/O Shri Ganesh Jangid v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Aug 2025CRLMB/5969/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail applications under Section 483 BNSS for petitioners arrested in connection with a cyber fraud case involving cryptocurrency investment complaints, offences under IT Act and BNS 2023. Bail granted considering compromise with complainant, bail to co-accused Vidit Sharma, filing of charge-sheet and custody period.

What did the court decide?

Both accused-petitioners released on bail on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000 each plus two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.

Prakash Jangid S/O Shri Ganesh Jangid Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:31584]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5969/2025

¶4

Prakash Jangid S/o Shri Ganesh Jangid, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Khatiyo Ka Mohalla, Nawalpura, Post Manoharpura, Tehsil Shahpura, Distt. Jaipur (Rajasthan) (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Jaipur Jail, Distt. Jaipur).

¶5

----Accused-Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7741/2025 Javid Khan S/o Shree Abdul Rashid, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Kaaji Colony Ward Number 05 Police Station Shahpura District Jaipur (At Present In Central Jail, Jaipur)

¶11

----Accused-Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Patni, Adv., with Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv., Mr. Fouji Chawla, Adv., and Mr. Javed Mohd. Khan, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP and Mr. Tanay Jain, Adv., with Mr. Prakhar Sharma, Adv., for complainant.

¶16

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶17

Order

¶18

13/08/2025

¶19

These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.02/2025 registered at Cyber Police Station (ATS & SOG), District ATS & SOG for the offences punishable

(2 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:31584]

[CRLMB-5969/2025]

under Sections 66C & 66D of IT Act and Sections 111(2)(b), 111(6), 318(4), 319(2) & 61(2) of BNS, 2023. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter.

¶24

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submit that in fact, complainant invested the money to purchase cryptocurrency. They further submit that petitioners have now entered into compromise with the complainant as entire amount of money transferred into the bank accounts of the petitioners has been returned by them. Furthermore, another co-accused, Vidit Sharma, has been granted benefit of bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, considering the factum of compromise. They argue that charge-sheet has already been filed and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. They contend that the petitioners are in custody since their date of arrest and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶25

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the complainant does not dispute the factum of compromise, if facility of bail is granted to the petitioner.

¶26

I have considered the contentions.

¶27

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially the fact that matter has been resolved by the parties amicably; other co-accused person has been granted benefit of bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:31584]

[CRLMB-5969/2025]

considering the factum of compromise; charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow these bail applications.

¶32

These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners – 1. Prakash Jangid S/o Shri Ganesh Jangid, and 2. Javid Khan S/o Shree Abdul Rashid 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 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.

¶33

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.

¶34

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶35

MADAN/109-110

Prakash Jangid S/O Shri Ganesh Jangid v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Jangid S/O Shri Ganesh Jangid 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

Neowise College of Nursing Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sonu Gottam S/O Harishankar Vs State of Rajasthan

Raju S/O Gyansingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ganesh Tholiya S/O Nathuram Tholiya Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahendra @ Babu S/O Hariram Vs State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Bairwa @ Lala S/O Shri Kaduram Bairwa Vs State of Rajasthan