Mijaj @ Mujjam S/O Islam Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:24379]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5030/2026 URN: CRLMB / 9021U / 2026

¶4

1 Mijaj @ Mujjam S/o Islam, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Alghani, Police Station Sikari, District Deeg. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail Deeg).

¶5

2 Rijwan @ Rijju S/o Kurshid, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Nakcha Ka Vas, Police Station Sikari, District Deeg. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail Deeg).

¶6

----Accused-Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Ankit Khandelwal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Vivek Sharma,Addl. G.A.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

¶12

Judgment / Order

¶13

02/07/2026

¶14

The present bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Nagar, District Deeg in Criminal Misc. Bail Application (CIS) No.178/2026, whereby the bail application of the petitioners was rejected in connection with F.I.R. No.81/2026, Police Station Sikari, District Deeg for the offences under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 317(2), 317(4), 317(5), 303(2), 313, 61(2) of the BNS, 2023, and Sections 66D of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008.

[2026:RJ-JP:24379]

[CRLMB-5030/2026]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no criminal antecedents against the accused-petitioners of having committed any offence of similar nature or any other nature.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the challan in the case has already been filed and the conclusion of trial will take sufficiently long time and even all the offences in which challan has been filed are triable by the Magistrate, therefore, he prays that the petitioners may be enlarged on bail as the accusedpetitioners are in custody since 09.03.2026.

¶20

Learned Additional Government Advocate vehemently opposes the bail application. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the material available on record. 6. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and upon consideration of the submissions advanced, and particularly the fact that challan has been filed; all the offences in which challan has been filed are triable by Magistrate; the conclusion of investigation/trial is likely to take a considerable time; there are no criminal antecedents against the accused-petitioners of having committed any offence of similar nature or any other nature, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application deserves to be accepted.

¶21

Consequently, the bail application is allowed . It is ordered that the accused-petitioners namely Mijaj @ Mujjam S/o Islam and Rijwan @ Rijju S/o Kurshid arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.81/2026, Police Station Sikari, District Deeg, shall be released on bail; provided each of them furnish a personal bond of

[2026:RJ-JP:24379]

[CRLMB-5030/2026]

(3 of 3)

Rs.1,00,000/ (Rs. One Lakh Only) with two sureties of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand Only) each, to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, with the stipulation that they shall appear before the said Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so until completion of the trial, subject to the following conditions:

¶26

(i) The petitioners shall not leave country without the permission of the Court;

¶27

(ii) The petitioners shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected;

¶28

(iii) 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence; and

¶29

(iv) In the event the petitioners are found involved in any other cyber fraud case in the future, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an appropriate application before the learned trial Court for cancellation of the bail granted herein.

¶30

(BIPIN GUPTA),J

¶31

21/MAHIMA

Mijaj @ Mujjam S/O Islam v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mijaj @ Mujjam S/O Islam v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lochan Singh S/O Dushyant Vs State of Rajasthan

Aadil S/O Sallu Vs State of Rajasthan

Sohil S/O Yunus Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajveer S/O Bhagwan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Nazim S/O Hanif Vs State of Rajasthan

Ammar S/O Abdul Mazid Vs State of Rajasthan