Allowed

Sabbir S/O Akhtar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC1 Sept 2026CRLMB/9820/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two connected bail applications were filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S., 2023. One application regarding Sabbir S/o Akhtar was dismissed as withdrawn. The court allowed bail for the remaining accused-petitioners, imposing strict conditions related to digital assets, communication, and social media usage due to the nature of the cyber-related offences.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed for Mohhammad Abbas S/o Subdeen and Barkat Ali S/o Sattar Khan on personal bond of Rs 1,00,000 with sureties, subject to strict conditions regarding assets, digital devices, and social me

Sabbir S/O Akhtar Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:35191]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9488/2026 CNR: RJHC020571942026 | URN: CRLMB / 17542U / 2026

¶4

Mohhammad Abbas S/o Subdeen, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Garh Ajaan, Ps Kama, District Deeg (Raj) (At Present Accused Is Confined In District Jail Deeg)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9820/2026 CNR: RJHC020584012026 | URN: CRLMB / 18170U / 2026

¶11

Sabbir S/o Akhtar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Udaka, Police Station Kaman, District Deeg, Rajasthan. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail Deeg).

¶12

Barkat Ali S/o Sattar Khan, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Anaj Mandi, Kaman, Police Station Kaman, District Deeg, Rajasthan. (At Present Accused Petitioner Confined In Sub Jail Deeg).

¶13

----Petitioners

¶14

Versus

¶15

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶16

----Respondent

¶17

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arafat Hussain Mr. Ankit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, P.P.

¶18

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA Order

¶19

01/09/2026

¶20

These criminal miscellaneous bail applications have been filed by the petitioners Mohhammad Abbas S/o Subdeen, Sabbir S/o Akhtar & Barkat Ali S/o Sattar Khan under Section 483 of B.N.S.S., 2023, who were arrested by the police in connection

[2026:RJ-JP:35191]

[CRLMB-9488/2026]

(2 of 5)

with the FIR No.279/2026 registered at Police Station Kama, District Deeg for the offences punishable under Sections 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61(2) & 112(2) of BNS, 2023 and Section 66-D of the Information Technology Act, 2008.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners seek permission to withdraw the criminal miscellaneous bail application No.9820/2026 qua the accused-petitioner Sabbir S/o Akhtar at this stage with liberty to file afresh after recording the statements of the Investigating Officer.

¶26

Learned counsel submits that the accused-petitioners Mohhammad Abbas S/o Subdeen & Barkat Ali S/o Sattar Khan have falsely been implicated in the present cases. Learned counsel submits that the Police after completing the investigation has filed the charge-sheet and no recovery is required to be made from them. Learned counsel submits that there are no serious criminal antecedents against them on '1930'. Learned counsel further submits that the allegations levelled against them are petty in nature. In view thereof, learned counsel prays that the accusedpetitioners be enlarged on bail, as trial of the cases will take sufficiently long time.

¶27

Learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposes the bail application, however, could not dispute the fact that there are no criminal antecedents of any nature in the past, however, certain petty complaints were registered against them on ‘1930’. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents of the FIR.

¶28

The criminal miscellaneous bail application

¶29

No.9820/2026 qua the accused-petitioner Sabbir S/o Akhtar is

[2026:RJ-JP:35191]

[CRLMB-9488/2026]

(3 of 5)

dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh after recording the statement of the Investigating Officer.

¶34

It is expected from the learned Trial Court to record statement of the Investigating Officer expeditiously preferably within two months from the date of passing of this order.

¶35

This Court, after considering the nature of allegations as reported in the FIR, noticing the fact that the accused-petitioners Mohhammad Abbas S/o Subdeen & Barkat Ali S/o Sattar Khan are behind the bars since long, no serious allegations on '1930' were found against them and without commenting upon merits of the matter, is inclined to exercise its power under Section 483 B.N.S.S. and deems it just and proper to enlarge the accusedpetitioners on bail.

¶36

Accordingly, the bail applications filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. are allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners - Mohhammad Abbas S/o Subdeen & Barkat Ali S/o Sattar

¶37

Khan shall be released on bail on the following conditions:-

¶38

Each of the accused-petitioners shall furnish a personal bond in the sum of ₹1,00,000/- each with two sound and solvent sureties of ₹50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

¶39

Within 15 days from the date of this order, the accused-petitioners shall file an affidavit before the trial Court/ I.O. disclosing the following details: -

¶40

(i) Movable and immovable assets which includes land, buildings, vehicles, deposits, investments all bank accounts and digital wallets, UPI IDs cryptocurrency holdings etc. allegedly used in commission of the offence or which the accused-petitioners have in their name.

(4 of 5)

[2026:RJ-JP:35191]

[CRLMB-9488/2026]

(ii) The accused-petitioners shall submit complete transaction statements of all of their active bank accounts, UPI IDs and digital payment instruments etc. after every 30 days till completion of the trial to the IO.

¶45

The accused-petitioners shall not obtain/use any new SIM card, mobile phone or open new bank account etc. without the prior intimation to the Investigating Officer.

¶46

The accused-petitioners shall surrender their passport, if they have, before the trial Court immediately after being released on bail. The accused-petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the trial Court.

¶47

The accused-petitioners shall not use any Virtual Private Network (VPN), TOR Browser, Proxy Server or any other form of anonymous network or identity masking technology without permission of IO.

¶48

The accused-petitioners shall submit to the Investigation Officer a comprehensive list of all electronic devices in their possession, including mobile phones, laptops, tablets, external hard disks and pen drive along with their IMEI numbers and serial numbers within 15 days of release under this bail order.

¶49

The accused-petitioners shall provide to the Investigating Officer details of all social media accounts, e-mail accounts, domain registration, websites and online platforms operated or used by the accused-petitioners.

¶50

The accused-petitioners shall not create any account on social media in the name of any person, domain name or website without the prior intimation to the Investigation Officer.

(5 of 5)

[2026:RJ-JP:35191]

[CRLMB-9488/2026]

The accused-petitioners shall mark their presence before the concerned police station once in 15 days as fixed by the Investigating Officer and a register shall be maintained for the same by Investigating Officer.

¶55

In case of any change of residential address, the accused-petitioner shall immediately inform the Investigating Officer as well as the trial Court.

¶56

The accused-petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer whenever called upon and shall fully co-operate with the investigation.

¶57

The accused-petitioners shall not tamper with evidence, influence witnesses or attempt to obstruct the investigation in any manner whatsoever.

¶58

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, failure to provide above information or such other information as desired by IO, shall be treated as a violation of the bail conditions, & further if the accused-petitioners are found to be involved in similar such cases within three years from the date of passing of this order, the public prosecutor shall move an application for cancellation of bails.

¶59

(RAVI CHIRANIA),J

¶60

49-50/Monika

Sabbir S/O Akhtar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabbir S/O Akhtar 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