Allowed

Aabid S/O Majid v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC6 Jul 2026CRLMB/9185/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 483 BNSS in a cheating/forgery FIR where petitioner was not named in the FIR and was implicated only through co-accused disclosure statements about providing bank accounts on commission. Court allowed bail with conditions, noting offences triable by Magistrate and co-accused already enlarged.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail on personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties of Rs.50,000 each, subject to stated conditions.

Aabid S/O Majid Vs State of Rajasthan — Quashing and FIR | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:24992]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9185/2026 URN: CRLMB / 16817U / 2026

¶4

Aabid S/o Majid, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Dharamshala, Police Station Kaithwara, District Deeg.

¶5

(At Present Confined At District Jail, Deeg)

¶6

---Accused-Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bal Ram Vashisth For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Gupta, PP Mr. Tara Chand, CI, SHO, Kaithwara, Deeg

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

¶12

Judgment / Order

¶13

06/07/2026

¶14

The present bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 25.05.2026 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Brijnagar, District Deeg, in Criminal Misc. Case (CIS) No.292/2026, whereby the bail application of the petitioner was rejected in connection with F.I.R. No.215/2023, Police Station Kaithwara, District Deeg for the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 384 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. He further submits that the FIR was lodged in the year 2023. He also submits that the petitioner is in custody since 25.04.2026. In the present matter, he was taken into custody on a production warrant on 15.05.2026.

[2026:RJ-JP:24992]

[CRLMB-9185/2026]

(2 of 4)

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused solely on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner used to provide bank accounts on a rental/commission basis. He further submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that except for four other cases, there is no past criminal antecedent against the petitioner. Out of those four cases, the petitioner has already been enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court in one case, and by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in another case. The remaining two cases are pending before this Bench today. He also submits that the offences are triable by a Magistrate. Moreover, the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a considerable period of time. Co-accused has already been enlarged on bail. Therefore, he prays that the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the bail application.

¶21

The Investigating Officer was called upon and submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the co-accused, in their disclosure statements, stated that the petitioner used to provide bank accounts on a commission/rental basis. On being asked by this Court, the Investigating Officer fairly submits that no bank accounts standing in the name of the petitioner has been identified.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.

¶23

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the fact that the offences are triable by a Magistrate;

[2026:RJ-JP:24992]

[CRLMB-9185/2026]

(3 of 4)

petitioner is not named in the FIR; and that, till date, as per the investigation, there is no material to show that the petitioner had provided any bank account, either in his own name or in the name of any other person, co-accused have already been enlarged on bail, investigation/trial will take considerable time, offences are triable by Magistrate, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present bail application deserves to be allowed, subject to the imposition of stringent conditions.

¶28

Consequently, the bail application is allowed . It is ordered that the accused-petitioner namely- Aabid S/o Majid arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.215/2023, Police Station Kaithwara, District Deeg, shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond of 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 he 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:

¶29

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

¶30

(ii) The petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected;

¶31

(iii) The petitioner 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

¶32

(iv) In the event the petitioner is found involved in any other case of similar nature 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.

(4 of 4)

[2026:RJ-JP:24992]

[CRLMB-9185/2026]

(v) The accused-petitioner shall mark his presence before the concerned police station once in a month as fixed by the Investigating Officer and a register shall be maintained for the same by Investigating Officer. (vi) In case of any change of residential address, the accused-petitioner shall immediately inform the Investigating Officer as well as the trial Court.

¶37

(BIPIN GUPTA),J

¶38

Sudha/42

Aabid S/O Majid v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aabid S/O Majid 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

Shahrukh S/O Ismial Vs State of Rajasthan

Lukman S/O Raseed Vs State of Rajasthan

Rahil S/O Ibrahim Vs State of Rajasthan

Kaushal Kishore Chandrul Son of Shri Om Prakash Chandrul Vs State of Rajasthan

Goru Nath S/O Amar Nath Adopted S/O Jagdish Nath Vs State of Rajasthan

Shayari W/O Late Kamnath Vs State of Rajasthan